Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T18:39:19.011Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Sterility (‘HA X’), a medical work by Aristotle?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Philip J. van der Eijk
Philip J. van der Eijk
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle upon Tyne, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Whether its title, ύπέρ τοῦ μ⋯ γεννᾶν is authentic or not, the work transmitted as ‘Book X’ of Aristotle's History of Animals (HA) deals with a wide range of possible causes for failure to conceive and generate offspring. It sets out by saying that these causes may lie in both partners or in either of them, but in the sequel the author devotes most of his attention to problems of the female body. Thus he discusses the state of the uterus, the occurrence and modalities of menstruation, the condition and position of the mouth of the uterus, the emission of fluid during sleep (when the woman dreams that she is having intercourse with a man), physical weakness or vigour on awakening after this nocturnal emission, the occurrence of flatulence in the uterus and the ability to discharge this, moistness or dryness of the uterus, wind-pregnancy, and spasms in the uterus. Then he briefly considers the possibility that the cause of infertility lies with the male, but this is disposed of in one sentence: if you want to find out whether the man is to blame, the author says, just let him have intercourse with another woman and see whether that produces a satisfactory result (636bl 1–13; see also 637b23–4). The writer also acknowledges that the problem may lie in a failure of two otherwise healthy partners to match sexually, or as he puts it, to ‘run at the same pace’ ἲσοδρομῆσαι during intercourse, but he does not go into this possibility at great length (636b 15–23), and he proceeds to discuss further particulars on the female side.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , December 1999 , pp. 490 - 502
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Rudberg, G., Zum sogenannlen zehnten Buch der aristotelischen Tiergeschichte (Uppsala, 1911).Google Scholar For some briefer discussions see Aubert, H. and Wimmer, F., Aristoteles. Thierkunde, vol. 1 (Leipzig, 1868), 6Google Scholar; Dittmeyer, L., Aristotelis De animalibus historia (Leipzig, 1907Google Scholar ), v; Louis, P, Aristote. Histoire des animaux, vol. 1 (Paris, 1964), xxxi–xxxiiGoogle Scholar and vol. 3 (Paris, 1969), 147–55; A. L. Peck, introduction to Aristotle, Historia animalium, Books I–III (Cambridge, MA and London, 1965), lvi–lviii; Gigon, O., Aristotelis Opera III: Librorum deperditorum fragmenta (Berlin, 1983), 502–3Google Scholar; Poschenrieder, F., Die naturwissenschaftlichen Schriften des Aristoteles in ihrem Verhdltnis zu den Biichern der hippokratischen Sammlung (Bamberg, 1887), 33Google Scholar; Rose, V, De Aristotelis librorum ordine et auctoritate (Berlin, 1854), 172ff.Google Scholar; Spengel, L., De Aristotelis libro decimo historiae animalium (Heidelberg, 1842Google Scholar ); Zeller, E., Die Philosophie der Griechen, vol. II, 22(Leipzig, 1921), 408ff.Google Scholar

2 It should be noted that the question of ‘belonging to HA’ does not necessarily depend on the book's Aristotelian authorship being settled, if one is prepared to consider the possibility (once popular in scholarship but currently out of fashion) that HA was, from the start, a work of multiple authorship.

3 For a survey of older scholarship see Balme, D. M., ‘Aristotle Historia Animalium Book Ten’, in J., Wiesner (ed.), Aristoteles. Werkund Wirkung vol. 1 (Berlin, 1985), 191–206.Google Scholar

4 Tricot, J., Arislote. Histoire des animaux, vol. 1 (Paris, 1957), 17.Google Scholar

5 Balme (n. 3); see also Balme's introductory remarks in Aristotle, History of Animals Vll-X (Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge MA and London, 1991), 26–30, and his notes to the text and translation (ibid., pp. 476–539).

6 For the ancient evidence that it was added later to HA, see below.

7 Cf. also Louis (n. 1), vol. 3, 148.

8 Balme, introduction to HA (n. 5), 21–6.

9 S. Follinger, Differenz und Gleichheit. Das Geschlechterverhaltnis in der Sicht griechischer Philosophen des 4. bis J. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Hermes Einzelschriften, 74 (Stuttgart, 1996), 143–56.

10 The possibility that HA X is different in style and doctrine from other Aristotelian works because it is practical in nature and addresses a wider readership is suggested by Gigon (n. 1), 503, but he does not elaborate this, and he also seems to think that the work was revised and updated by a later Peripatetic in the light of new evidence.

11 See e.g. Metaphysics 1025b25, 993b21; Topica 145a16.

12 See e.g. Nicomachean Ethics 1094blff, 1098a21ff., 1102a5ff.

13 Strictly speaking, medicine is a ‘productive’ art for Aristotle, since its purpose, health, is distinct from its activity (cf. EN 1140al–23; Pol. 1254a2; Magna Moralia 1197a3); but this distinction is irrelevant for the contrast ‘theoretical’ vs. ‘practical’.

14 De sensu 436a17–b2; De divinatione per somnum 463a4–5; De respiratione 480b22–31. Cf. also De longitudine et brevitate vitae 464b32ff.; Departibus animalium 653a8ff. For a discussion of these passages see Van Der Eijk, P. J., “Aristotle on ‘distinguished physicians ” and on the medical significance of dreams’, in Van Der Eijk, P. J., Horstmanshoff, H. F. J., and Schrijvers, P.H. (edd.), Ancient Medicine in its Socio-cultural Context, vol. 2 (Amsterdam and Atlanta, 1995), 447–59.Google Scholar

15 On this work, and its reputation in the later tradition, see Stohmaier, G., ‘Al-Farabi über die verschollene Aristoteles-Schrift “Über Gesundheit und Krankheit und über die Stellung der Medizin im System der Wissenschaften’, in J., Irmscher and R., Müller (edd.), Aristoteles als Wissenschaftstheoretiker (Berlin, 1983), 186–9.Google Scholar

16 For example, Flashar, H., Aristoteles. Problemata physica (Berlin, 1962), 318Google Scholar: ‘Aristoteles sagt von sich selbst, er sei kein Fachmann in der Medizin und betrachte medizinische Fragen nur unter philosophischem oder naturwissenschaftlichem Blickpunkt.’ For a more positive attitude to the possibility that Aristotle wrote on medicine see Marenghi, G., ‘Aristotele e la medicina greca’, Rendiconti del Inslituto Lombardo, Classe di Lettere 95 (1961), 141–61.Google Scholar

17 The references can easily be found with the aid of Bonitz's Index Aristotelicus or Gigon's collection of fragments (see n. 1), frr. 295–324. For a recent discussion of this (lost) work see Kollesch, J., ‘Die anatomischen Untersuchungen des Aristoteles und ihr Stellenwert als Forschungsmethode in der Aristotelischen Biologie’, in W., Kullmann and S., Föllinger (edd.), Aristotelische Biologie. Intentionen, Methoden, Ergebnisse (Stuttgart, 1997), 370Google Scholar; see also Kullmann, W., ‘Zoologische Sammelwerke in der Antike’, in W., Kullmann, J., Althoff, and M., Asper (edd.), Gattungen wissenschaftlicher Litemtur in der Antike (Tubingen, 1998), 130–1.Google Scholar

18 The Aristotelian authorship of this section of the Problemata was defended by Marenghi, G., Aristotele. Problemi di medicina (Milan, 1966Google Scholar ), and more recently by Louis, P., Aristote. Problemes, tome I (Paris, 1991Google Scholar ). Flashar (n. 16), 385, is more cautious.

19 Celeres passiones 2.13.87: Hanc defmiens primo De adiutoriis libro Aristoteles sic tmdendam credidit: ‘Pleuritis’, inquit, ‘est liquidae materiae coitio siue densatio’.

20 Anon. Lond. V 37 and VI 42. The Aristotelian authorship of the work of which Anon. Lond. is an adaptation is taken seriously by D. Manetti, ‘Autografi e incompiuti: il caso del Anonimo Londinense P. Lit. Lond. 165’, ZPE 100 (1994), 47–58, and by Gigon (n. 1), 511. Other scholars, basing themselves on a passage in Galen's Commentary on Hippocrates' On the Nature of Man 1.25–6 (pp. 15–16 Mewaldt; XV 25 K.), assume that this work was in fact written by Aristotle's pupil Meno.

21 This is, of course, not to say that these analogies and metaphors prove that Aristotle had medical interests. But the frequency of these analogies is remarkable and may be significant. For a discussion of the role of medicine in Aristotle's thought and a bibliography on the subject see van der Eijk (n. 14). Little attention has been paid to the lengthy discussion of animal diseases in HA 602b12–605b21.

22 See frr. 113–16 and 123 Gigon.

23 A good example of such ‘technical’ aspects is Aristotle's discussion of various aspects of sense-perception in GA V.

24 For further details see Balme (n. 3), 191.

25 On this pattern, see P. J. van der Eijk, ‘The matter of mind. Aristotle on the biology of “psychic” processes and the bodily aspects of thinking’, in Kullmann and Föllinger (edd.) (n. 17), 231–41.

26 It may not be a coincidence that there are more cases of scientific writing in antiquity where the final book or part of a work seems rather different in nature and subject matter from the rest (cf. Book IV of the Meteorologica; Book IX of Theophrastus' Historia Plantarum; and the final parts of Hippocratic works such as De morbo sacro, De camibus, De vetere medicina). However, if ‘HA X’ does not belong to HA, as I am claiming, this is irrelevant to the present argument. On the Problemata see below.

27 Two examples may suffice. Aristotle's remarks (in De caelo and the Meteorologica) about atmospheric conditions influencing keenness of sight apparently presuppose an emanatory theory of vision which is difficult to accommodate within his ‘canonical’ view of normal visual perception as expounded in An. 2.5. And his remarks about various bodily factors being responsible for different degrees of human intelligence seem difficult to reconcile with his ‘orthodox’ view that thinking is a non-corporeal process. For a more elaborate discussion of these problems see van der Eijk (n. 25).

28 On this well-known problem see E. Lesley, Die Zeugungs- und Vererbungslehren der Antike und ihr Nachwirken, Abh. d. Akad. d. Wiss. u. d. Lit. Mainz, geistes- u. sozialwiss. Kl. 1950, 19 (Wiesbaden, 1951), 1358–79; I. During, Aristoteles. Darstellung und Interpretation seines Denkens (Heidelberg, 1966), p. 533; Föllinger (n. 8), 171–9. For a recent discussion see C. G. Bien, ‘Der “Bruch” in Aristoteles’ Darstellung des Zeugungsbeitrags von Mann und Frau', Medizinhistorisches Journal 33 (1998), 3–17.

29 GA 767a25. (I owe this observation to Sophia Elliott, who has dealt with this tension in Aristotle's thought in her Cambridge Ph.D. dissertation). To be sure, Aristotle had briefly alluded to the principle of avfifierpia in 723a29–33, bu t this is in a polemical context an d it is no t elaborated. It is interesting to note that in ‘HA X’ the principle of συμετρία is applied to generation without qualification (636b9), whereas in GA it is introduced when the question what the offspring will be like is at stake (767a24), although in the sequel it is also brought to bear on the issue of fertility.

30 προΐούσης δὲ τῆς ⋯λικίας ἀνδρί καί γυναικί τοΰ μ⋯ γενναν άλλ⋯λοις συνόντας τό αϊτον ὁτ ὲ ἐν ἀμΦοΐν ἒστὶν ὁτὲ δ᾽ ἐν θατέρῳ μόνον. πρῶτον μὲν οὖν ἐπὶ τοῦ θηλέος ςεῖ θεωρε;ῖν τὰ περί τάς ὑστέρας ὃπως ἒχει, ἳν᾽ εἰ μέν᾽ εἰ μὲν ταύταις τό αΐτιον αΐτιον αΰται τυγχάνωσι θεραπείας, εί δέ μ⋯ έν ταύταις περίετερόν τι των ποιώνται τ⋯ν έπιυέλειαν ποιωνται τ⋯ν έπμέλειαν (633b12–17, trans. Balme, slightly modified).

31 ὃσαις ςὲ τούτων μηδὲν ᾖ, ἀλλ᾽ ἒχουσιν ὃν τρόπον δεϊν εϊρηται ἒχειν, ἂν μἠ ὁ ἀνὴρ αἲτιος ᾖ τῆς ἀτεκνίας, ἀμΦότεροι μὲν δύνανται τεκνοῦσθαι (trans. Balme). See also 635a31–2: ‘Concerning the mouth of the uterus, then, those are the grounds from which to consider whether it is in the required state or not’ (περὶ μὲν οὖν τὸ στόμα τῶν ύστέρων ἐκ τούτων ἡ σκέψις ἐστίν, εἰ ἒχει ὡς δεῑ ἢ μ⋯, trans. Balme).

32 μηδὲν ἀναισθητοτέρας εΐναι θιγανομένας. τοῦτο δὲ κρίνειν οὐ χαλεπόν (634a4–5); λέγω δὲ τὸ καλῶς τοιοῦτον ὄπως ὄταν ἄρχηται τὰ γυναικεΐα, θιγγανόμενον ἒσται τὸ στόμα μαλακώτερον ἢ πρότερον καί διεστομωμένον Φανερῶς (635a7–10); Φανερῶς ἒσται ἀνεστομωμένη ἂνευ ἀλγ⋯ματος, κἂν θιγγάνη κἂν μὴ θιγγάνη (635a12–13); ἒτι δὲ θιγγανομέης τά έπί δεξιά καί τά έπ΄ άριστερά αύτ⋯ς εΐναι (635b15–16); ἒστι δ᾽ οὐ χαλεπὸν γνῶναι, ἂν ᾖ, θιγάνοντα τ⋯ς ύστέρας (638b30–31; but the text is uncertain here).

33 σηαίνειν (passim, e.g. 634a14, 26, 635a11, 12, 17, 23, etc.); τούτο δέ κρίνειν (or γνώναι) ού χαλεπόν (634a5, 636b3); Φανερόν (634a5); έπίδηλον γίνεται (634a29); περί μέν ούν τό ατόμα των ύστέρων έκ τούτων ⋯ οκέψις έστίν, εί έχ ει έχει ώς δεΐ ⋯ μ⋯ (635a31–2); διασημαίνει (634a37); δηλοῖ (634b12); είδέναι…οημεῖα λαβεῖα Φαίνοιτο (636b11–12). In themselves, these expressions are not peculiar to this treatise, but the high frequency and the emphasis the author put on indicator is significant.

34 θεραπείας δεόμενον (634a12, 21, 34, 634b7, 10–11, 31, 635a36, b27, 637b29); ού μέντοι νόσος ἀλλἀ τοιούτόν τι πάθος οΐον καθίστασθαι αΰταί δέονται θεραπείας (634b7); ἐἀ μέν οΰν ἰσχυρῶς τῆ Φύσει οΰτως ἒχωσιν ῆ ύπό νόσου άνίοτον τό πάθος (635a2–4); ὂ έστι θεραπευτόν (636a25); καί ίατόν καί ἀνίατον (636b3). In the short discussion of sterility in GA 746b16–25 Aristotle also distinguishes forms of sterility that can be cured and thes that cannot.

35 See the discussion by H. von Staden, [Incurability and hoplessness] in P. Potter, G. Maloney, and Desautels, J (edd.), La maladie et les maladies dans la Collection Hippocratique (Quebec, 1987), 76–112Google Scholar.

36 Balme (n. 3), 194.

37 Ibid., 195.

38 Apart from the considerations already mentioned above, there is also the frequent use of δεΐ in relation to the normal state: ‘it should be like this….’(e.g. 634a1)

39 Ibid., 196.

40 Föllinger (n. 9), 147–8.

41 The only statement to this effect is in 635b28, where the treatment the uterus is said to require is compared with the mouth's need to spit (ὢσπρ καί στόμα πτύσεως sc δεΐται).

42 Indeed he is critical of ‘many doctors’ (638b 15) who misidentified cases of dropsy as cases of mola uteri.

43 See e.g. C. Oser-Grote, ‘Das Auge und der Sehvorgang nach Aristoteles und der hippokratischen Schrift De carnibus’, in Kullmann and Föllinger (n. 17), 333–49, and id., Aristoteles und das Corpus Hippocraticum (forthcoming). See also the literature quoted in van der Eijk (n. 18), 447, n. 2.

44 See e.g. Aëtius V 9 and V 14 (Diels, DG, 421,424). For the relation between Problemata and doxography see J. Mansfeld, ‘Physikai doxai e Problemata physica da Aristotele a Aezio (ed oltre)’, in Battegazzore, A. M (ed.), Dimonstrazione. argumentazione dialettica e argumentazione retorica nelpensiero antico (Genova, 1993), 311–382Google Scholar.

45 See the discussion of the linguistic evidence by Louis (n. 1), vol. 3, 151–2; Balme (n. 3), 193–4; and Follinger (n. 9), 146–47.

46 For example, in 727b7, 746b28, 771b22–3, 774a22. To the passages already quoted by Balme and Föllinger, GA 747a 13ff. should be added, where the mechanism of a certain type of fertility test applied to women (rubbing colours on to their eyes and then seeing whether they colour the saliva) is explained by Aristotle by reference to the fact that the area around the eyes is the most ‘seedlike’ (σπερματιώτατος).

47 634b29, 37; 635a21; 635b37; 636a6, 10ff.; 636b4–5, 37; 637a2–3; 637a15; 637a37; 637b12; 637b19;637b31;638a1.

48 634b37,635b37, 636al 1–12, 637b31.

49 Cf. the use of συμβάλλεσθαι in GA 739a21 and συμβάλλεσθαι είς τ⋯ν γένεσιν in GA 729a21–2.

50 Cf. also GA 739b16 ff.

51 634b30ff, 635b2, 635b22 ff., 637b25–32.

52 See 635b2:πντα γάρ ταΰτα οηίνει δεκτι⋯ν τ⋯ν ύστέραν εΐναι διδομένου καί προσπαστικάς τάς κοτυληδόνας καί καθεκτικάς ὦν λαμβάνουσι καί ἀκούσας ἀΦιείσας. Cf. also GA 739a35.

53 διά τί ού γεννᾆ αύτά αύε ί καθεκτικάς ὦν λαμβάνουσι καί ἀκούσα καθεκτικάς ὦν λαμβάνουσι καί ἀκούσας ἀΦιείσας(trans. Balme).

54 Even though, as Balme notes ([n. 3], p. 198), 739a28 allows that some of the menstrual blood may already be outside the uterus when conception takes place; and Aristotle sometimes uses the verb ‘ejaculate’ (πρίεσθαι) for menstrual discharge (GA 748a21). See also HA IX (VII) 582b12ff. on the various possible positions of menstrual blood at conception.

55 Related to this is the difficulty that in GA 727b7–11, Aristotle seems to think that the sexual act does not influence fertility, whereas the author of ‘HA X’, as we have seen, regards ‘keeping the same pace’ (ίσοδρομεΐν) as a very important, indeed a crucial factor for conception (636b15–23). However, it seems that the author of ‘HA X’ does envisage the situation referred to in GA 727b9-l 1, for ίσοδρομεΐν becomes relevant only after the other conditions for male and female fertility have been met. Nor does the author of ‘HA X’ assume that ejaculation is necessarily accompanied by pleasure.

56 Cf. also 739a3.

57 A view which is incidentally advocated in HA IX (VII) 586a15.

58 That this is the subject matter of this passage is also indicated by the fact that in the sequel Aristotle is discussing how the female residue reaches the uterus (which is also called ίσοδρομεΐν in 739a3–5) in orer to be discharged.

59 πντα γάρ ταΰτα οηίνει δεκτι⋯ν τ⋯ν ύστέραν εΐναι διδομένου καί προσπαστικάς τάς κοτυληδόνας καί καθεκτικάς ὦν λαμβάνουσι καί ἀκούσας ἀΦιείσας, (trans. Balme).

60 Föllinger (n. 9), 150.

61 As said above (p. 497), the discussion of sterility (άγονία) in GA 746b16fT. displays several differences with regard to 'HA X', although there are no genuine inconsistencies. The GA passage distinguishes various kinds of sterility with various causes but these are stated in very general terms, and the cases ‘HA X’ mentions could well be accommodated within this typology: they are all instances of infertility that arises when man and woman get older (προϊούσης δέ τ⋯ς ⋯λικίας), and they are due either to physical defects (προϊούσης) or to disease (προϊούσης); some are curable, others incurable.

62 Earlier versions of this paper were presented at a seminar on Aristotle's HA at the University of Louvain (May 1996), during a meeting of the Arbeitskreis Alte Medizin, Mainz (June 1998), and at the University of Liverpool (April 1999). I am grateful to the audiences present on those occasions for their valuable comments. I am particularly indebted to Sophia Elliott and Sabine Follinger who, while strongly disagreeing with my main thesis, offered valuable written comments on a penultimate draft, and to Jonathan Powell for his helpful comments on style.