¹ Laur. 74.2, fol. 381, lines 3–26; not fol. 281, as in A. M. Bandini, Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Mediceae Laurentianae (Florence, 1764–70; repr. Leipzig, 1961), vol. 3, col. 47, and all others subsequently. Bandini was misled by a later incorrect numeration which begins on fol. 379 with the number 279 (in brown ink at the top of the page); the continuous numeration is in red ink at the bottom. Laur. 74.2 contains a text of Paulus Aegineta (J in Heiberg's list of manuscripts), copied from Parisinus Graecus 2216–17 (E; eleventh century), when that manuscript was still intact; the end of Par. Gr. 2217 as it now stands was supplied by Par. Gr. 2047, itself copied from Par. Gr. 2208 (D; fourteenth century); see Heiberg, I. L. (ed.), Paulus Aegineta. CMGIXA (Leipzig, 1921), v–vi, for details.Google Scholar

The text of Paulus in Laur. 74.2 is followed by Damastes and four other short excerpts to fill out the codex. Its apograph (not, I believe, previously noted) is Par. Gr. 2210, copied in 1357 by Manuel Pankratios, which contains the same series of extracts; see Omont, Henri, Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la Bibliotheque nalionale. Vol. 2. Ancien fonds grec Droit. Histoire. Sciences (Paris, 1888), pp. 214–15Google Scholar; id., Facsimiles des manuscrits grecs dates, de la Bibliotheque nationale, du IXe au XlVe siecle (Paris, 1891), 15 (pi. LXXVII.l).

² Costomiris, G.-A., ‘Études sur les écrits inédits des anciens médecins grecs’, REG 5 (1892), 71–2Google Scholar; Bloch, I., ‘Byzantinische Medizin’, in M., Neuberger and J., Pagel (edd.), Handbuch der Geschichte der Medizin (3 vols, Jena, 1902), 564Google Scholar; Diels, H., Die Handschriften der antiken Ärzte II (Berlin, 1906), 26Google Scholar; Devreesse, R., Introduction a I'étude des manuscrits grecs (Paris, 1954), 264Google Scholar; Temkin, O., Soranus’ Gynaecology (Baltimore, 1956), 211–12Google Scholar; Hunger, H., Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner (Munich, 1978), 310Google Scholar; Papadimitriu, H., s.v., Lexicon des Mittelalters III (Munich and Zürich, 1986Google Scholar ), col. 475.

³ E.g. Hp. Mul. 8.78.16–30 L; see Dean-Jones, L., Women's Bodies in Classical Greek Science (Oxford, 1994), 34.Google Scholar

⁴ E.g. Thasos: c. 400 B.C., El. Tlias. 4 nos 4–11; and father, iv B.C., ibid, nos 518–31 (LGPN 1: 114); SEG 30 (1980) 1271, SEG 40 (1990) 1606, etc. Also in the Doric form Δαμάτας, e.g. IG 4².1485.

⁵ Cf. Δάμασ–ος, Δαμασ ⋯νωρ, Δαμασιπος; also Δαμασί-στρατος.

⁶ It does not appear in any of the standard sources: W. Pape and G. Benseler (edd.), Worterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen (3rd edn, Braunschweig, 1863–70); nor the three volumes so far published of P. M. Fraser and E. Matthews (edd.), A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names; nor any of the indexed volumes of IG or in SEG; nor in any indexed papyrological publication I have been able to examine; nor anywhere in the TLG index or in the Duke Databank of Documentary Papyri.

⁷ Δαμν-αγόρας, -αμενεύς, -εύς; Δάμν-δίκα; Δαμνιπος (besides Δάμιππος).

⁸ See Dornseiff, F. and Hansen, B., Reverse-lexicon of Greek Proper-names/Riicklaufiges Worterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen (Berlin, 1957Google Scholar; repr. Chicago, 1978).

⁹ For colostrum as the ideal starter food, see M., Pernoll and R., Benson (edd.), Current Obstetrical and Gynaecological Diagnosis and Treatment (Los Altos, 1987), 236.Google Scholar For various ancient opinions on the quality of mother's milk, see Dean-Jones (n. 3), 222–3.

¹⁰ On the form of the argument, see Lloyd, G. E. R., Science, Folklore and Ideology (Cambridge, 1983), 187–8, 191.Google Scholar

¹¹ Temkin (n. 2), 211–12: ‘This Damastes is otherwise unknown, although Diels, Die Handschriften der antiken Ante 2 (Berlin, 1906), 26, cites a Greek manuscript of the 1 lth century “On the Treatment of Pregnant Women and of Infants” by one Damnastes’.

¹² E.g. Xen.Mem. 4.1.1.

¹³ Deichgraber, K., Die griechische Empirikerschule (2nd edn, Berlin, 1965), 171–2Google Scholar; Von Staden, H., Herophilus (Cambridge, 1988), 501–3.Google Scholar

¹⁴ For surveys, see Lesky, E., Die Zeugungs- und Vererbundslehren der Antike undihr Nachwirken (Wiesbaden, 1951)Google Scholar; Hanson, A. E., The eight month's child and the etiquette of birth: obsit omen’.', Bulletin of the History of Medicine 61 (1987), 589–602Google Scholar (later references are to this article); Hanson, A. E., ‘Paidopoia: metaphors for conception, abortion, and generation in the Hippocratic Corpus’, in Ancient Medicine in its Socio-cultural Context. Clio Medica 27–28 (Amsterdam, 1995), 291–307Google Scholar; Dean-Jones (n. 3), 148–224.

¹⁵ Collections were already made by Aul. Gell. 3.16 and the doxographer Aetius (first century A.D.) 5.21, 23. See Hanson (n. 14) for discussion.

¹⁶ Cartledge, P, The Greeks: A Portrait of Self and Others (Oxford, 1993), 67Google Scholar; but see Lloyd, G. E. R., ‘Experiment in early Greek philosophy and science’ and ‘The early history of dissection’, Methods and Problems of Greek Science (Cambridge, 1991), 70–99, 164–93.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Nat. Puer. 13 (7.488.22–492.6 L), 18 (7.504.16–20 L); Cam. 19 (8.610.2–10 L); Epid. 2.2.13 (5.90.1–2 L): at 60 days (cf. Galen's commentary, CMG X.I.222.1–9: noting that the genitalia must have been complete); 2.2.19 (5.92.2–7 L) a full description (but nevertheless misunderstood in antiquity: Galen, CMG X.I.229.3–37); 5.12 (5.212.1–2 L); 7.97 (5.450.24–452.3 L); cf. Epid. 4.20g (5.160.6–7 L): at 30 days, patient claims 40; Arist. H.A. 583b3–24. See below.

¹⁸ //. 19.117–18 is illustrative: Eurystheus, born at seven months, is ⋯λιτό-μηνον ‘missing the month’ (cf. Archil. 196a.38: ⋯λιτ-⋯μερα), but still viable, while the birth of Herakles, also in the seventh month, has to be held back by Hera.

¹⁹ The various durations of pregnancy are most often measured in months. However, the sources make it clear that they are not talking about vague units of time, but precise numbers of days after conception. Three notable exceptions, Hippon (fifth century B.C.), Alcmaeon of Croton (fifth century B.C.), and Aristotle, did not hold to the idea of normative schedules. Hippon maintained that the foetus could be born any time from the seventh to the tenth month: 38 A 16 DK (Censor. 7.2–4 and 9.2), see below; Censorinus also attributed to Hippon a system of sevens and tens determining the child's first steps, growth and loss of teeth, puberty, etc., which goes back at least as far as Solon's division of the ages of man into sevens. Alcmaeon wisely maintained that no one could know what parts of the embryo formed first: 24 A 13 DK (1.213.37–38; Censor. 5.3). Even Aristotle (discussed below) held that although children could be born at times in between, seven months and ten months were the norm (G.A. 772b7–11).

²⁰ Note that both the seven- and nine-month babies are fully formed and viable in most accounts. The author of Hp. SeptimJOct. is a case in point: Hermann Grensemann (ed.), Hippokrates. ¨ber Achtmonatskind, Über das Siebenmonatskind. CMG I 2,1 (Berlin, 1968); and Joly, Robert, Hippocrate. Tome XI: De la génération, De la nature de Venfant, Des malades IV, Du foetus de huit mois (Paris, 1970).Google Scholar Babies born in the seventh month, at half a year or 182+ days (see below for the calculations), are smaller and weaker, but the majority will perish not because of incomplete development but because they did not ride out day 200, the next multiple of the deadly number forty, in the womb (7.436.15–438.8 L, 90.12–16 Grenseman, 165.2–12 Joly). Both seven-month babies who survive day 200 and nine-month babies who survive day 240 (the eighth-month crisis) are equally likely to survive (7.444.16–21 L, 96.1–5 Grensemann, 169.10–15 Joly). The author maintained at one point that the majority of babies born in the tenth month (i.e. after 270 days) will be carried off by the deadly day 280 (7.438.3, 10–11; 90.11–12, 19 Grenseman; 165.6–7, 16 Joly); elsewhere, that they are less likely to perish because they are stronger and further from the dangers of the day 240 (7.444.22–446.5 L; 96.5–11 Grensemann; 169.16–170.3 Joly). Hanson, (n. 14), 599, gives a somewhat different explanation.

²¹ Hanson (n. 14) provides a full survey.

²² J. Mansfeld has argued, in ‘Doxography and dialectic. The Sitz in Leben of the “Placita”’, ANRW II.36.4, 3179–83, and ‘Chrysippus and the Placita’, Phronesis 34 (1989), 311–42, that Varro in turn drew on not on the lost Vetusta Placida of the first century B.C. as reconstructed by Diels (Doxographi Graeci [Berlin, 1879], 188–92) but an older work, known to Chrysippus and with origins in the Skeptical Academy, which Mansfeld labels the ‘Vetustissima placita’ for his earlier views, see his The Pseudo-Hippocralic Tract irepl περί έβδομάδων Ch. 1–11 and Greek Philosophy (Assen, 1971), 159, 190, n. 198.

²³ The ‘ten months’ in this account, as the calculations make clear, are nine months counted inclusively.

²⁴ Cf. Plut. De anim. pro. 1017f— 18c; this does not seem to be quite the same as the fully developed system of perfect numbers that we find in Euclid; see Heath, T., A History of Greek Mathematics I (Oxford, 1921), 74–5.Google Scholar

²⁵ Cf. Macrob. Som. 1.6, a repository of much of this numerical mysticism. Plut. De anim. pro. 1017f—18c and Macrobius (1.6.14–16), following Nicomachus of Gerasa (ap. Ps.-Iamblichus 51, 64 [De Falco]), give similar calculations: 2³ (= 8, masculine) + 3³ (= 27, feminine) = 35; 35 x 6 = 210 = 7 months of 30 days.

²⁶ Cf. Hp.Septim./Oct. 7.448.11–21 L (80.3 Grensemann, 171.17–9 Joly).

²⁷ Aul. Gell. 3.10.7–8, supposedly reporting the opinion of Varro himself, gave the same account: 7 days for the seed to coagulate, 7 x 7 = 49 days for the foetus to be completed, and birth in 273 days (7 x 39, the first day of the fortieth week); see also Mansfeld (n. 22 [1971]), 167, n. 59.

²⁸ For the distinction, cf. Hp. SeptimJOct. 7.448.2–4 L (78.12–15 Grenseman, 171.5–7 Joly); cf. Mul. 1.10 (8.42.1–4 L), 1.11 (46.19–21), 1.12 (50.3), 1.16 (54.1); Cam. 19 (608.22–610.6 = 200.25–201.10 Joly); Arist. G.A. 758b5–6, H.A. 583a25–27, 83b10–15; Sor. 3.47 (125.21 26.1 lib. = Γ.15.10–16 BMG; cf. 1.15 = 11.5 lib. = A4.148; 1.46 = 33.4 =A.16.22), Gal. 4.542–43, 17A.445,799. It is also found in the text of Metrodora, Gynaecology (Florence, Laur. 75.3), which I am currently editing. There is no general agreement on the date separating the two stages. Varro-Censorinus followed Hp. Mul. 1.0, 1.11, 1.16 in saying six or seven; Damastes and the account in Proclus agreed on six days for the seed to ‘take’ (so too Gal. 4.542.8–14 K citing Hippocrates as an authority); Hp. Septim.lOct., Cam. and Arist. (op. cit.) said seven; while Hp. Mul. 1.12 and Sor. 3.47 said two to three days.

²⁹ Where we might have expected 285 (40 5/6 x 6).

³⁰ The author appears to be operating with a solar year of exactly 365 days; then 9 months = 273 days, 18 hours. Contrast the solar year of 365 days, 6 hours used in the Hippocratic SeptimJOct (below, n. 49). For the calculations in groups of forty, cf. Septim.lOct. passim, esp. 7.448.21–450.6 L (80.13–20 Grensemann, 172.10–19 Joly).

³¹ 31 A 83 DK (Censor. 7.5), followed in this by the astrologer Epigenes of Byzantium (PW 17; probably second century B.C.). Cf. Empedocles 31 A 75 DK = Aetius, De Plac. 5.18 (427.15–28 Diehls) = [Plut.]Mor. 907f (178 Lachenaud), where both seven- and ten-month children are viable in a sort of remembrance of the cosmos’ original ten and seven month long ‘days’ (rather than ‘a range of seven to ten months', Hanson [n. 14], 589, n. 1). See G. Lachenard (ed.), Plutarque: Oeuvres morales. Tome XII.2. Opinions de Philosophes (Paris, 1993).

³² 31 A 83 DK (Aetius 5.21.1; [Plut.]Mor. 909b [183 Lachenard]); repeated by Athenaeus Medicus ap. Orib. Lib. Inc. 16 (3.105.26–106.7 Raeder; cited below) and Psell. De omn. doctr. c. 86.

³³ Westerink, L. G., ‘Proclus et les presocratiques’ in Saffrey, Jean Pepin Et H. D. (ed.), Proclus, lecteur et interpr te des anciens (Paris, 1987), 110–11.Google Scholar On Empedocles and Pythogoras in general, see Kingsley, Peter, Ancient Philosophy, Mystery, and Magic: Empedocles and Pythagorean Tradition (Oxford, 1995).Google Scholar

³⁴ Herophilus 198, ed. von Staden (n. 13), 369–70.

³⁵ Cf. Theon Sm. 106.3–11 (Hiller) and Arist. Quint. 3.5 (102.19–103.9 Winnington-Ingram) on the significance of nine.

³⁶ κάμπτοντας I am not certain of the sense here of κάμπτω, which is used nowhere else in this work.

³⁷ That is, the number of months of gestation, the viable seven and nine, and the not-viable eight.

³⁸ In Pythagorean thought, odd numbers are male (based on the unity), even numbers are female (having had something added to the unity); so in the table of opposites, Arist. Met.986a21–6; Walter Burkert, Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism (Cambridge, MA, 1972), 429,474–6.

³⁹ I.e. take the smallest possibile Pythagorean triad: 3–4-5; then 7 = 3 + 4, the sum of the two sides adjacent the right angle; 9 = 4 + 5, the long side and the hypotenuse; while 8 = 3 + 5.

⁴⁰ An embadon is a triangular number, the sum of the series of integers, so 1,3 (= 1 + 2), 6 (= 1 + 2 + 3), 10 (= 1 + 2 + 3 + 4), etc. These were assigned various mystic values. See PI. R. 8.3 (546b-d) and Plut. De anim. pro. 1017c, 1018c; for later sources, cf. Philo, Questiones in Gen. 3.38 (206 Aucher), Lydus, Mens. 2.11 (32.4–14 Wuensch), Clem. Alex. Stromata 6.16.139, Anatolius on Ps.-Iambi. Theolog. Arim. 143.3–9 (de Falco), Theon Sm. 102.4–18; Arist. Quint. 3.6, 3.12 (102.1–12, 112.8 Winnington-Ingram). Ernest G. McClain, ‘Musical ”marriages” in Plato's Republic', Journal of Music Theory 18 (1974), 242–72. There is an alternative tradition in which 5 (2 + 3) is ‘marriage'; see Burkert (n. 38), 33, n. 26, for sources.

⁴¹ 38 A 16 DK (Censor. 7.2–4 and 9.2).

⁴² 64 A 26 DK (Censor. 9.2) and A 27 (Censor. 6.1). But Galen (17A.1006.8 K) complains: ‘Nearly all doctors agree that the male not only is formed [SicnrXaTTeodcu] but also moves earlier than the female. Rufus [of Ephesus, c. A.D. 50] says that Diogenes of Apollonia in Book II of On Nature is the only one to maintain the opposite [64 B 9]. But I have not be able to find a copy of the work’.

⁴³ Although the dating of Hippocratic material is necessarily somewhat subjective, the works considered here—Epid. II, Cam., Septim.lOct., Viet., Nat. Puer.—are generally dated to the end of the fifth/beginning of the fourth century B.C. See Jacques Jouanna, Hippocrate (Paris, 1992) for a useful overview, and see individual editions cited below.

⁴⁴ The Arabic text of Galen's commentary (in German translation) apparently reads ‘eight-month child’ here. Galen attempted to explain the discrepancy between the seven-month child and the nine months: ‘Was er iiber das mit neun Monaten geborene Kind sagt, muB man so verstehen, daB es auch von dem mit sieben und dem mit acht Monaten geborenen Kind gilt, weil seine Worte von alien Kindern gleichermaBen und allgemein gelten’. See Ernst Wenkebach and Franz Pfaff, Galeni in Hippocratis Epidemiarum libros I et II, III, VI. CMG V 10.1 (Leipzig, 1934), 300.29–32.

⁴⁵ For the ‘additional’ ten days, see Hp. Cam. 19 (612.1–10 L); for the multiples of seven, see Hp. SeptimJOct. 7.460.5–9 L (88.12–16 Grensemann, 178.17–22 Joly), both discussed below.

⁴⁶ So also Epid. 2.6.4 (5.134.2–3 L).

⁴⁷ See Wenkebach and Pfaff, CMG V 10.1 (n. 44), 295.35–296.6. Cf. Macrob. Som. 1.6.22.

⁴⁸ So 9 months of 30 days each is 270; add 10 to bring it up to the next multiple of 7 = 280 (4 x 70); 7 months = 210 days (3 x 70). The author is merely laboriously working out the factors.

⁴⁹ The reasoning for this is not made manifest here, but the author is assuming that conception takes place approximately halfway through a month, following the last menstrual cycle, so at SeptimJOct. 13 (7.460.4–7 L, 88.11–14 Grensemann, 178.14–16 Joly); see Dean-Jones (n. 3), 171–2. In this it resembles the modern Naegele's rule, calculating birth at 40 weeks from the last menstrual cycle. Here the author seems to mix a thirty-day lunar month with a more exact solar month.

⁵⁰ 436.1–8 L (88.17–90.2 Grensemann, 164.1–9 Joly). The author is working with a solar year of 365 days 6 hours. This gives a solar month (1/12) of 30 days 10 hours 30 minutes. The ‘seven-month child’ is born after six solar months (i.e. at the very start of the seventh month), half a year = 182 days 15 hours. Seven months are said to put the embryo at the beginning of completion (reAeionos), i.e. the first point at which the foetus is viable:SeptimJOct. 7.448.7–9 L (78.19–20 Grensemann, 171.12–14 Joly). However, at SeptimJOct. 7.458.19–460.2 L (88.5–10 Grensemann, 178.7—12 Joly) the author works with a lunar month rounded off to 30 days, which gives him more pleasing fractions (1 day = 1/30; 2 days = 1/15; 3 days = 1/10).

⁵¹ See Lami, A., ‘Fare i conti con Περì ὐĸταμ⋯νου, in F., Lasserre and P., Mundy (edd.), Formes depensée dan la collection hippocratique (Geneva, 1983), 355–82Google Scholar; Hanson (n. 14), 596–7.

⁵² Septim/Oct. 7.448.21–450.6 L (80.13–20 Grensemann, 172.10–19 Joly).

⁵³ Here, of course, the mathematics is on a completely different basis from the solar calendar of the seven-month child. The ten-month child can be called eleven-month, since the conception might take place in the last few days of month 1, then 9 full months of 30 days (270 days), and the birth would then occur in the first few days of month 11 (for a total of 280). So Septim./Oct. 7.460.5–9 L (88.12–16 Grensemann, 178.17–22 Joly).

⁵⁴ The subject now seems to be the embryos.

⁵⁵ Cf. Hp. Epid. 2.6.17 (5.136.7–8):τρíμηνον παíδι ‘the three-months child [clearly then a miscarriage] shows everything clearly’.

⁵⁶ Burkert (n. 38), 262–4.

⁵⁷ To complete the survey of Hippocratic opinion, the work On Sevens (Hebd., περìέβδομáδων; 1.8–13 Roscher) mentions seven days for the coagulation of the seed. Roscher, W. H., Die hippokratische Schrift von der Siebenzahl (Paderborn, 1913)Google Scholar and Mansfeld (n. 22 [1971]), 175–7.

⁵⁸ Cf. Macrob. Som. 1.6.22, who claims 70 days for males, 90 days (= 3 months) for females on Hippocrates’ authority.

⁵⁹ This passage clearly underlies the report in the account of Varro ap. Censorinum about the ‘experience of doctors’ (Censor. 11.10). See Lonie, I. M., The Hippocratic Treatises ‘On Generation,’ ‘On the Nature of the Child,’ ‘Diseases IV (Berlin and New York, 1981), 158–68Google Scholar, esp. 162–3, on the possible Pythagorean basis for this claim.

⁶⁰ Joly, Robert, Hippocrate. Tome XIII (Paris, 1978)Google Scholar, 200.25–210.10. Lonie (n. 59), 160 states that the author ‘claims to have procured the abortion of a seven-day embryo, not once, but several times'; sim. Dean-Jones (n. 3), 174. Rather the statement is that the common prostitutes claim to know when they have gotten pregnant and have frequently had abortions.

⁶¹ Date uncertain; traditionally called Hippocrates’ son-in-law. See Von Staden, H., ‘A new testimonium about Polybus’, Hermes 104 (1976), 494–6Google ScholarPubMed with earlier literature.

⁶² Aetius, De Plac. 5.18 (429.1–12 Diehls) = [Plut.] Mor. 908b: τà δ’ ảĸταμηνιαîα μ⋯ ζῆν, ὂταν προĸὐψη μ⋯ο τῆς μ⋯τρας τò βρέøος, ἐπì πλεîον δ’ ó òμøαλòς βασανισθῆ ἂτροøος γ;áρ γíνεται † ὡς τοû τρέøοντος αἲτιος† (179–80 Lachenaud). A similar explanation is found in Septim./oct. concerning pains in mother and child, but this is tied to the periods of forty days and is said explictly to occur to children of seven and nine months as well (7.436.15–444.21 L, 90.20–92.7 Grensemann, 165.17–169.15 Joly); see the discussion in Grensemann (n. 20), 56–7, especially whether the ὃταν clause in [Plut.] represents a necessary or pathological condition.

⁶³ Cf. H.A. 584b20, where the MSS read either eleven or ten.

⁶⁴ The bibliography on Aristotle and the biology of women is vast. See, inter alia, Horowitz, Maryanne C., ‘Aristotle and woman’, Journal of the History of Biology 9 (1976), 183–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Morsink, Johannes, ‘Was Aristotle's biology sexist?' Journal of the History of Biology 12 (1979), 83–112CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Lloyd (n. 10), 94–106; Silvia, Camprese, Paulo, Manuli, and Guilia, Sissa (edd.), Madre Materia (Turin, 1983), 139–45Google Scholar, 162–70; Suzanne Said, ‘Féminin, femme et femelle dans les grands traités biologiques d'Aristote', in Edmond, Lévy (ed.), La femme dans les sociétés antiques (Strasbourg, 1980), 93–123.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ This did not involve dissection as such; see Lloyd (n. 16), 179, n. 55.

⁶⁶ Preserved in Ps. Iambi. (62.8–64.15 Falco) and Macrobius (1.6.65–6); see Roscher (n. 57), 92–4, for parallel texts; see Mansfeld (n. 22 [1971]), 164–8, for discussion of sources.

⁶⁷ Third head of the Lyceum, died c. 287–269 B.C. See Mansfeld (n. 22 [1971]), 165, n. 50 an d 177–8.

⁶⁸ Dates uncertain, but probably a rough contemporary of Aristotle; see von Staden (n. 13), 44–6.

⁶⁹ Cf. Aristotle's comparison to an ant (above).

⁷⁰ The later date for the male is surprising.

⁷¹ Aetius, De Plac. 5.18 (428.8–15 Diehls) = [Plut.] Mor. 908a (178 Lachenaud); fr. 174 Wellmann. See Lachenard (n. 31), 179 and 307; Grenseman (n. 20), 57.

⁷² Athenaeus ap. Orib. Lib. Inc. 16 (3.105.26–106.7 Raeder). See above for his citation of Empedocles.

⁷³ Frg. 175 Wellmann; see above for Diocles.

⁷⁴ See above.

⁷⁵ Mansfeld (n. 22 [1971]), 164 and 167, n. 59.

⁷⁶ The text is that of the Budé edn of Joly, R., Hippocrate, Tome VI, 2e Partie: Du régime des maladies aiguës, Appendice, De I'aliment, De I'usage des Hquides (Paris, 1972).Google Scholar Joly assembles previous opinion and argues for a date in the second or third century B.C. (132–6). Diller, H., ‘Eine stoisch-pneumatische Schrift im Corpus Hippocraticum’ Sudhoffs Archiv 29 (1936), 178–95Google Scholar (repr. in Kleine Schriften zur antiken Medizin [Berlin, 1973], 17ff.) and Deichgräber, K., Pseudhippokrates’ Ober die Nahrung (Mainz, 1973), 11–13Google Scholar, 69–75, argue convincingly for a date around the birth of Christ. However, part of the argument for the later date rests on the influence of Athenaeus and the Pneumatic school but Athenaeus’ calendar differs from the one found here.

⁷⁷ Hanson (n. 14) at 593.

⁷⁸ PW 25; Deichgrüber, K., Die griechische Empirikerschule (Berlin, 1965), 25–9.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Aetius 5.21.2, [Plut.] Mor. 909b (183 Lachenaud).

⁸⁰ See Lacy, Phillip De, Galen: On Semen. CMG V 3.1 (Berlin, 1992), 218Google Scholar; Debru, A., ‘L'ordre de formation des organes embryonnaires: la retractio de Galien', Bulletin d'Histoire et d'éipistemologie des Science de la Vie 2 (1995), 156–63.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Arist. Quint. 3.18 (117.17–118.18 Winnington-Ingram) and 3.23 (124.5–16). Other more complicated calculations follow.

⁸² Contrast Hanson (n. 14) at 589. Inclusive counting is found in Varro's account and Hp. Septim/Oct (with special explanation).

⁸³ It is, of course, possible that separate remarks about the female child have not been included in the sketch we have here, but there is no evidence for such an assumption and no Pythagorean account lists sex differences in its calendar.

⁸⁴ Contrast Damastes’ repeated ảποĸυîσĸεται with the vocabulary of Hp. Alim. 42 (above).

⁸⁵ To solve for the next number in the sequence (where a > b > c): a =bc/(2c - b). A clear explanation with diagrams at Plut. De anim. pro. 1017f, 1019c-e; cf. Arist. Quint. 3.5 (101.12–23 Winnington-Ingram), Iambl. In Nicomachi Arithm. Introd. 100.19–101.5, 113.16–22 (Pistelli) = Hippasus 18 A 15 DK (I.I 10.30–36); Porph. In Ptolemaei Harm. 93.7–17 (Düring) = Archytas 47 B 2 DK (1.435.19–436.13); Theon, Mathematica (Hiller 114.14–115.4, 118.4–119.16). See Heath (n. 24), I, 85–6; Burkert (n. 38), 440–1.

⁸⁶ For a standard sequence that does add to 40, see Plut. De anim. pro. 1019a-b: (1 × 4) + (2 ×4) + (3 × 4) + (4 × 4) = 4 + 8 + 12 + 16 = 40; also 1² + 2² + 2³ + 3³ = 1 + 4 + 8 + 27 = 40.

⁸⁷ I wish to thank the director and staff of the Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana, Florence for their help. Research was aided by a Rome Prize Fellowship funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities and by the Semple Fund of the University of Cincinnati.