500 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. 



gora, aud to show to what extent the later European stories about it 

 were based upon classic antiquity. It has been shown that, while the 

 elements of these superstitions were known to the Greeks and Romans, 

 they were not generally connected with this plant. I wish now to show 

 what they thought about the mandragora itself. 



Before discussing its legitimate uses in medicine, certain beliefs should 

 be noticed which are not entirely free from superstition, and yet are 

 apparently based on observation of the actual effects of the plant. 

 These are (1) that it induces madness ; (2) that it influences sexual 

 relations, being effective (a) in philtres, (h) as an aphrodisiac, (e) to 

 produce fecundity. 



In the treatise De Hominum Locis (formerly ascribed to Hippocrates, 

 and in any case to be referred to the 3d or 4th century b, c.*) direction 

 is given to administer " less of the drug than causes madness." f 



Suidas gives the verb txav^payopit,w without defining it; judging by 

 the analogy of words like eAAe^opt'^w it seems to mean '' to dose with 

 mandragora." 



that tlie dudd'iin were actually /jirjXa /xavSpayopwv. The supposed discovery of repre- 

 sentations of and mention of the mandragora on Oriental and Egyptian monuments, 

 such as Perrot and Guillaume (Les Monuments de la Pte'iie, Rev. Arcli., 23 (1872), 

 pp. 284-289) and Brugscii (Die Alraune ah altagijptische Zauherpflanze, Zeitschr. f iir 

 Aegypt. Spr., 29 (1891), pp. 31-33) describe, wliere the connection might indicate 

 that it had a reputation as a wonder-plant among these peoples, is altogether too 

 much a matter of conjecture to be admitted as evidence. 



Some of the recent writers appear to hold the belief (tliough I do not find it 

 definitely stated by them) tliat this story-complex developed in tiie East, and 

 passed from there substantially in its later form, with all its features already con- 

 nected with tlie mandragora. In that case, the superstition, it seems to me, would 

 have passed as a whole to the Greeks and Romans, in connection with the man- 

 dragora, — it would not have been broken up into parts, the circles with a sword 

 staying with the mandragora, tlie sex-feature going to eri/nr/e, digging with the 

 aid of a dog to haarns and aglaophotis, the use as a feticii to ophites, and so on. 

 Veth evidently realized as inconsistent with this view the fact tliat Josephus tells 

 his digging story about baaras, and not about mandragora; but Veth maintained 

 that baaras and mandragora were the same plant, but tiiat Josephus did not know 

 the Greek name. Veth would gladly believe that Aelian, too, was only telling of 

 mandragora under another name wlien he wrote of a<jlaop]iolis, but he confesses 

 liimsclf unable to identity thorn, lie thinks that the imcritical Aelian made a 

 mistake and wrote down the name of tlie i)hint wrong! But all difficulty vanishes 

 when we believe that in the time of Josepluis and Aelian this feature of the later 

 story had not got as far as the mandragora. 



* See Kiilin's Ilii)pocrates, vol. 1, p. cliii ; Neub.-l'ag., p. 217. 

 t Hipp., 2. 139 : iKajcrov f) ws jxaiviffOai. 



