Galen Psychological Writings (Peter N. Singer, Daniel Davies, Vivian Nutton) (z-lib.org).pdf
1. T
PSYCHOLOGICAL WRITINGS
All Galen's surviving shorter works on psychology and ethics -
includingthe recentlydiscoveredAvoidingDistress,
and the neglected
Character
Traits,extant only in Arabic - are here presented in one
volume. Each appears in a new translation, with substantial introduc~
tion, notes, glossaries and indices. Original and penetrating analyses
are offeredof the psychologicaland philosophicalthought, both of
the aboveand of two absolutelycentralworksof Galenicphilosophy,
Affections
andErrors
and 7heCapacities
oftheSoul,bysome of the fore~
most experts in the field. Each treatise has also been subjected to fresh
textualstudy taking account of the latestscholarlydevelopments,and
is presented with accompanying textual discussions; this adds greatly
to the value and accuracy of the work without detracting from the
book's accessibility to a wider readership. The book thus provides a
major contribution to the understanding of the ancient world's most
prominent doctor-philosopher in his intellectual context.
P. N. SINGER is Research Associate at Newcastle University, where
he is preparing a series of texts for the Cambridge Galen Transla-
tions prQject, including the treatises on bodily composition (De tem-
peramentis)
and health (Desanitatetuenda).His Galen:
SekctedWvrks
(1997) constituted the first-ever English translation of several major
texts. Galen's psychology has been central to his research interests,
which include also other ancient psychological theories; works of
practical ethics; and Greek drama and performance culture.
DANIEL DAVIES is a Research Associate in the Taylor-Schechter
Genizah Research Unit at Cambridge University Library, and has
taught Religious Studies at Canterbury Christ Church University.
His research interests are in Arabic and Hebrew philosophy, with
particular focus on medieval writers. He is the author of Methodand
Metaphysics
in Maimonides''Guide
far thePerplexed'
(2011).
VIVIAN N UTTON, Emeritus Professor of the History of Medicine at
University College London, is also professor in the Department of
Classicsat the University ofWarwick. He has edited severalworks by
Galen, including On My Own Opinions(1999), and On Problemati-
calMovements(2011), and is preparing an edition of the short pseu-
donymous On the Propertiesofthe Centaury.A revisedversion of his
AncientMedicineappeared in 2013. Vivian Nutton is a Fellow of the
British Academy,a Member of the German Academyof Sciences,and
an honorary Fellowof the RoyalCollegeof Physicians.
2. CAMBRIDGE GALEN TRANSLATIONS
General editor: Philip van der Eijk
G~en's works represent one of the most impressive monuments of classicalmedi-
cine. They dominated medical theory, teaching -and practice in the medieval
European and Islamic worlds and remained a key source of medical wisdom down
to the twentieth century. But his works also concern themselveswith all the philo-
sophical issues involved in understanding the human body, soul and health, and
in diagnosing and treating illness, and Plato and Aristotle were key influences
on his thought. Furthermore, as the court physician of several Roman emperors,
Galen is an important source of information about social and cultural lifein the
early Empire.
Cambridge Galen Translations provides a co-ordinated series of scholarly English
translations of works of Galen in a unified format with substantial introduction
and annotation, glossariesand indices. Many of the translations have been new-
ly commissioned, while others are revised versions of good translations which
have for some time been out of print. Editors and translators are drawn from the
world's leading scholars of G~en and of ancient medicine. The series is intended
·both to contribute to international Galenic scholarship and to make Galen's work
more easily accessible for a wider, non-specialist readership including historians
and philosophers of science and readers with a medical background.
Titlesin series:
Psychologkal
Writings,ed. P.N. Singer, with _contributionsby Daniel Davies and
Vivian Nutton
Inpreparation:
WorksonHuman Nature,ed. Philip van,der Eijk and P.N. Singer, with
contributionsby R. J. Hankinson and Mark Schiefsky
CommentaryonHippocratelProgn.o,stic,
ed. Christine Salazar
MattersofHealth,ed. P.N. Singer
SimpleMedicines
I-V, ed.John Willdns
IheFunction
ofthePartsoftheHumanBody,ed.JuliusRocca
GALEN: PSYCHOLOGICAL
WRITINGS
EDITED BY
P. N. SINGER
Avoiding Distress
CharacterTraits
TheDiagnosisand Treatmentof theAffections
and ErrorsPeculiarto EachPerson}Soul
TheCapacitiesof the Soul Dependon theMixturesof theBody
TRANSLATED WITH INTRODUCTIONS
AND NOTES BY
VIVIAN NUTTON, DANIEL DAVIES
AND P. N. SINGER
WITH THE COLLABORATION OF
PIERO TASSINARI
CAMBRIDGE
UNIVERSITY PRESS
4. vi Contents
3 THE DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF THE
AFFECTIONS AND ERRORS PECULIAR TO
EACH PERSON'S SOUL
RN Singer
Introduction
Translation
Book I (Affections)
Book II (Errors)
Textual notes
4 THE CAPACITIES OF THE SOUL DEPEND
ON THE MIXTURES OF THE BODY
RN Singer
Introduction
Translation
Textual notes
-List of textualdepartures
.fromthe editionused
List oftitlesand abbreviations
of Galensworks
Bibliography
English-Greek
glossary
English-Arabic
glossary
Greekwordindex
Arabicwordindex
Indexof names
Indexofpassages
Generalindex
203
205
237
237
283
315
333
335
374
410
425
429
443
475
483
490
508
514
516
530
List of illustrations
1 Map indicating the area affected by the fireof 192, with rhe
possible locations of Galen's storeroom and Rome's libraries page60
2 Schematic diagram of the markings on a water-dock
(klepsudra),
as described in Errors,eh. 5
(after Marquardt 1884, p. xx) 302
vii
5. Serieseditor's
preface
The works of Galen of Pergamum (129-c. 215 CE), 'the Prince of Physi-
cians', constitute one of the most impressive monuments of classicalmedi-
cine. They comprise all areas of medical theory and practice, ranging from
anatomy, physiology, pathology, diagnosis and prognosis, dietetics and
regimen in health, therapeutics, pharmacology and surgery, gynaecology,
embryology and theory of reproduction to psychiatry and ethics. In addi-
tion, they cover philosophical and methodological aspects fundamenral to
the acquisition, systematization and communication of medical knowl-
. edge, such as logic, terminology, epistemology, philosophy of nature and
theory of causation. And however voluminous and wide-ranging, they are
bound together by an intrinsic and coherent (if eclectic) comprehensive
theory of the human body, the human psyche, their place within the natu-
ral world, the nature of medical knowledge, and the technical and ethical
components of medical expertise. ,
Galen's works were of enormous infl.uenc~on the subsequent history
of medicine and science, both in the West and in the East (and in Arabic
medicine), and Galen's authoriry remained powerful until well into the
seventeenth century and, in some r.espects,beyond that. Yet, more recent-
ly, Galen's works have also found-strong resonance beyond the domain of
medical history. Galen was, after all, not only a brilliant doctor and prolific
writer but also the court physician of several Roman emperors, a keen pub-
lic debater and dissector, and an active participant in social and cultural
life, first in Pergamum and subsequently in Rome. It is therefore nor sur-
prising that Galen's work commands a rapidly growing interest from clas-
sicists, ancient historians and students of Greek and Roman literature, phi-
losophy and society; and his writings are being exploited as a rich source
for the social, cultural and intellectual history of the early Imperial period.
Yet Galen's works are difficult to access. Many are available only in old
editions that do not meet current standards of classical scholarship, such
as the nineteenth-century edition by KarlGottlob Kilhn (Greek text with
viii
Serieseditor's
preface ix
Latin translation), which is still the most recent edition aspiring to com-
pleteness but which is universally regarded as unsatisfactory- and, in spite
of its tide Opera omnia, it lacks a number of Galenic works preserved
in Latin or Arabic adaptation (such as, in the present volume, Character
Traits)or deemed lost but later discovered (such as the recently found
Avoiding Distress,also included here). For only a handful of Galenic texts
have the basic modern philological requirements of a critical edition with
translation and commentary been fulfilled; and although Galenic scholar-
ship of rhe last decades has seen significant improvement, it is still the case
that large parts of Galen's work are not available in English translation.
While interest in Galen thus seems greater than ever before, the language
skills required to read him in the original are becoming more and more
scarce.
The Cambridge Galen Translations series aims to address this need. The
purpose of the series is to provide a co-ordinated series of scholarly English
translations of works of Galen in a uniform format consisting of introduc-
tion, translation, explicative notes, glossaries and indexes.
The series has been planned in close co-ordination with other ongo-
ing Galen projects, such as the Corpus Medicorum Graecorum (CMG)
at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences,1 the Galen volumes in
the Bude series published by Les Belles Lettres (Paris),2
and those in the
Loeb Classical Library published by Harvard University Press,3 in order
to minimize duplication and, where possible, to promote international
collaboration. Indeed, the translations in this volume, and in those to fol-
low, are based on critical editions that have been published, or are being
prepared for publication 1 in the CMG, or BellesLettres, or in some cases
by other publishers (such as the Galenic ScriptaMinora published in the
Teubner series).
Yet the novelty of the project lies not only in its provision of English
translations. It also aims to make a new contribution to international
Galenic scholarship, especially through substantial introductions, notes
1
Alistofworkspublishedin theCMG (whichwasfoundedin 1907)andofworksinpreparationcan
befoundon the CMG websiteat http://cmg.bbaw.de/Startseite.html
2
SeeJ. Jouannaand V. Boudon,'Pr6sentationdu projetd'edition de Gallenclansla Collectiondes
, Universit6s
de France',Bulletinde /'Association
GuillaumeBude 1993,pp. 101-135. So far,sixvol-
umeshavebeenpublished:ArsMedica/Protrepticus
(Boudon,2000), De ossibus
ad tirones/De
dissec-
tionemmculorum(GarofaloandDebru,2005), Delibris
propriis/De
ordinelibrorumsuorum!Quod
op-
timusmedicus(Boudon-Millot,2007), Dedissectione
neruorum/De
dissectione
venarumet arteriarum
(Debru and Garofalo,2008), lntroductiosivemedicus(Petit,2009),De indolentia(Boudon-Millot,
JouannaandPietrobelli,2010). '
3 Sofar,twoGalenicworkshavebeenpublished:On theNaturalFaculties
(Brock,1916)and Method
ofMedicineQohnstonand Horsley,2011),
6. X SerieseditorSpreface
and glossaries, which are intended co provide resources for the study of
Galenic language and thought, and indeed of Greek medical terminology
at large. In this regard, the format of the series is closely modelled on Rich-
ard Sorabji'sAncient Commentators on Aristotle (published by Duckworth),
from which it has drawn most of its inspiration, and on the Cambridge se-
ries of translations of Prod us' Commentary on Plato>sTimaeus. Moreover,
the project is meant to open up Galen's work to other disciplines beyond
Classics and History of Medicine, such as the History of Philosophy, the
History and Philosophy of Science, Cultural History, Linguistics and Lit-
erary Studies, and to readers with a medical background.
Galen's work is vast, and the series willtherefore, in the first instance, give
priority to works that have not yet been translated into English (or indeed
into any modern language), or to works for which an English translation
exists which, however, is out of print, 4 or in need of revision or replace-
ment in the light of recent developments in Galenic scholarship. Further
considerations in the planning of the series have been the availability of
critical editions and the interest of the texts to be included and their rel-
_evanceto some of the rhajOrissues that Galen)s work raises. Thus the works
translated in the present volume are important witnesses to Galen's views
on the relationship between body and soul, on mental health and well-
being and on the psychological management and treatment of human
emotions. The volumes to follow will testify to Galen's views on the nature
of human beings; the nature and methodology of medical prognosis and
prediction; the preservation of health and the,promotion of a healthy style
of living; the structure and purposive arrangement of the human body;
and the theory and therapeutic practice of simple medicines. They will
also provide insight into the ways in.which Galen arrived at his views and
tried to justify them, how he accommodated and appropriated the various
intellectual traditions, both medical and philosophical, to which he was
indebted, and how successful he was in his attempts to create a synthesis
out of these often conB.icting tendencies. Furthermore, they will give a
lively picture of the social and cultural environment in which Galen lived
and how it impinged on the formation and development of his ideas; and
finally, they will be illuminating for Galen's activities as a writer and com-
municator, for the ways in which he presented his ideas, the-consistency of
his terminology, the audiences for whom he wrote, the genres he used to
4 E.g.,P.N. Singer'sGalen:Selected
Wbrks,Oxford1997;translationsof a number of Galenictexts
includedthere arerevised,with extensivenew introductions and notes,for the presentseries.
Serieseditors preface xi
disseminate his ideas and the rhetorical strategies he employed to persuade
his readers and to distinguish himself from rival doctors with whom he was
in constant competition.
The project is generously supported by the Wellcome Trust through a
History of Medicine Programme Grant, which has allowed the appoint-
ment, at Newcastle University, of three designated academic staff for the
first five years of the project. Thanks are due to Newcastle University for
its institutional support, and to the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation,
the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the Humboldt University for
ensuring the continuation of the project, and providing additional fund-
ing, after my move to Berlin. The project is further supported by the help
of the members of the Advisory Board, which consists of Vivian Nutton
(London), Heinrich von Staden (Princeton), Christopher Gill and John
Wilkins (both Exeter), Jim Hankinson (Austin, Texas), Christian Brock-
mann (Hamburg), Veronique Boudon-Millot (Paris), Amneris Roselli
(Naples) and Daniela Manetti (Florence). For the practical organization
of the project, we would like to thank Cambridge University Press, and in
particular its Classics Editor Michael Sharp, who have supported the idea
right from the start and have been a patient source of help during the final
stages of manuscript preparation.
Philip van der Eijk
7. Editor's
preface
The present volume comprises all that survive of Galen's shorter works on
psychological and ethical themes. Though small in extent, they represent
a particularly important and interesting part of his philosophical output,
as well as reflecting the ways in which that philosophy interacts with his
medical thought and role as a doctor. At the time of writing, there is no
book in print in English containing any of these works.1
AvoidingDistress(Jnd.
2
), a hitherto lost work, dramatically discovered
in an overlooked manuscript in Thessaloniki in 2005, here receives its
. first full translation anHcommentary in English. CharacterTraits(Mor.),a
work surviving only in Arabic, and in condensed form at that, appears here
in a thoroughly revised and updated version based on rhe only previous
English translation, that of Mattock in 1972. The translations ofAjfections
and Errors(Aff. Pee
c. Dig.) and The Capacities
of the Soul Dependon the
Mixturesof the Body (QAM) began as,revisions by the editor of his own
1997 translations, but developed in the·proc~s - a process driven mainly
byconsiderations of increased precision and internal consistency, as well as
the need to take into account a range of modern scholarly developments -
into essentially new translations.
The present volume is the result of collaboration, and the individual
translators and editors of each'.treatise have benefited from each other's
advice, as well as from that of Christopher Gill and Ralph Rosen, who
1 Thelargerandmorewide-ranging
- butalsomoredifficultandmoretechnical- workof Galenic
psychology,
The
Doctrines
ofHippocrates
andPlato,is accessible
in Englishin PhilipDe Lacy's1978-
1984editionwithCorpur
Medicorum
Graecorum
(orviatheCMGwebsite),whichmaybestudiedby
thereader
interested
in pursuing
further
someof the themesraisedin thisvolume.Thepresentseries
aimson thewholeto avoidunnecessary
overlap
withworkswhichareavailable
in modern,scholarly
EngUsh
translations.
2 Forthe abbreviations
givenherein parentheses,
and subsequently,
see the listof titlesandabbre~
viationsof Galen's
worksat theend of thisbook.TheGreektitlesare,respectively,
ffapiCUv,r(a5;
TTspi
T}6&v;
ffap 61ayvOOo-eevs
1<a6spamlas T&vtv Tflt1<6:aTou
41vxfilo!evv-rrae&v
[Ka]
OµapTnµ&revv;
~0T1
Ta1sToO
o-6:)µcrros
1<p6:ceo-1v
al Tfj5
41vxfs
6vv6:µHs
fooVTa1.
xii
Editorspreface xiii
were involved in the volume at the planning stage, and of the series editor,
Philip van der Eijk. Each of these gave invaluable decailed advice and sug-
gestions at various draft stages, for which we are profoundly grateful. (In
the particular case of Christopher Gill, the availability to che editor of a
pre-publication version of his 2010 book NaturalisticPsychology
in Galen
and Stoicismwas of particular value in the development of the introduc-
tory material.) The editorial assistant, Piero Tassinari, also provided ex-
tremely useful guidance, including on scholarly matters, in a way that goes
beyond che remit that that title would imply.
However, it remains the case that each of the chapters of the book has
largelyrepresented a separate task;and the distribution oflabour can be sum-
marizedasfollows. AvoidingDistress
was translated,annotated and introduced
byVivan Nutton; Affections
andErrors
and TheCapacities
oftheSou/by P.N.
Singer; Character
Traitswas translated by Daniel Davies, in close collabora-
tion with Singer, this collaboration extending also to the notes; its introduc-
tion is by Singer. The overall introduction to the volume is also by Singer.
The compilation of the Liseof titles and abbreviationsof Galen'sworks and
of most of the other index materials, the rationalization of the Bibliography,
and a range of other editorial tasks aimed at increasing the work's accuracy,
consistency and usefulness, have been the work of Piere Tassinari.
The book is designed to make these central works in Galen's intellec-
tual oucput accessible and comprehensible to a wider audience, who may
have interests in philosophy; in Graeco-Roman culture; in the history of
medicine, ethics or psychology, At the same time, our aim has been to
take appropriate account of the considerable recent historiographical and
philological developments in the specialist field of Galen studies.
In the latter context, especially, che volume perhaps goes further than
would normally be expected for a translation, in discussion of and attempt
to establish the correct text. Perhaps a word may be needed here in justifi-
cation of this: there are, in fact, specific reasons why each of the texts here
included required such attention.
In the case of Avoiding Distress,the justification is clear enough. The
text, discovered in 2005 in a single, extremely error~prone, manuscript,
has since that dace been the focus of a large volume of scholarly activity.
Nutton has been deeply involved in this activity, and has in effect estab-
lished his own text in response to the ongoing scholarly discussions. In the
context of these discussions - which extend to considerable areas of doubt
on substantive questions-. it has been necessary for him at times to discuss
MS variants in considerable detail, and even to offer in appendix form his
own version of one particularly problematic passage.
8. xiv Editorspreface
CharacterTraits,extant in an Arabic summary rather than a full Greek
text, presents its own textual problems. Though previously translated into
English, and discussed (fairly briefly) in a couple of well-known pieces by
Richard Walzer, it has not, in fact, been the focus of any very serious or
extended scholarly attention. The main textual problem, however, is that
that summary version stands in need of supplementation from a variety of
later Arabic, Hebrew, and Judaeo-Arabic souices, which at times givefuller
quotations of the text. This has necessitated the addition of a substantial
appendix of such quotations.
The text ofAffectionsandErrors,meanwhile, though surviving in Greek,
and in a number of modern editions, nonetheless presents massive prob-
lems of its own. The single important Greek manuscript·is extremely cor-
rupt; and the number of variant readings, some of them on substantive
questions, suggested by a host of modern scholars, is considerable. More-
over, a recent critical edition, by Giuseppina Magnaldi, in many respects
at odds with the previously accepted one, and not reflected in any modern
translation, needed to be taken into account. In the process, it is again
hoped that a translation has been arrived at which represents a better text
than previous versions. ··But where philological detail has been discussed
beyond the level that would interest a wider audience, the results of rhis
have been placed in a separate section of textual notes.
In the case of 7he·Capacities
of theSoul,finally, though the textual dif-
ficulties are on the whole less, there were.again particular reasons for atten-
tion to philological detail. In this case a new critical edition, by Athena Ba-
zou, appeared in the course of our work and Just in time for us to take into
account. This new edition again presented a different approach from that
previously used as standard, and raised a number of questions, especially
in relation to the importance of considering the Arabic tradition of the
text; and so, here too, a careful coinparison of the textual solutions offered
by the different modern editio"Ilsseemed necessary. There are sometimes
differences of substantive importance to the sense; but, again, a separate
section of textual notes has been added covering the more intricate and less
accessible questions.
In addition to the individuals acknowledged above, thanks go to
Peter Adamson for taking time to advise us, especially on Graeco-Arabic
questions; to the participants in the Warburg lnstitute's Arabic Reading
Group, which discussed Character
Traitsin the spring of 2011; to the par-
ticipants in two Galen workshops, organized by Philip van der Eijk at the
Humboldt-Universitiit, Berlin, in the summers of 2010 and 2011, many
Editorspreface xv
of whom gave extremely useful advice on translation and other questions;
tO Athena Bazou for making available to us the results of her research in
advance of the 2011 publication of her edition of 7heCapacities
oftheSoul,
as well as for a number of valuable personal communications; to Hinrich
Biesterfeldt, for personal communications about an unpublished Arabic
manuscript of 7he Capacities
of the Soul;and, for advice and insights on
a number of individual matters, Galenic and para-Galenic, to Catharine
Edwards, Brooke Holmes, Caroline Petit, Thomas Rtitten and Christine
Salazar. Especial thanks go to Rotraud Hansberger, for technical advice
and help with the Arabic material in the volume at a late stage, and to
Anna Oxbury, the Press'scopy-editot, for her painstaking and meticulous
contribution.
P.N. Singer
9. Note on citations and abbreviations
Titles of works of ancient authors, if given in full in a discursive context,
are usually translated. For precise references in footnotes; the standard ab-
breviations of the Greek-English
Lexiconof Liddell, Scott and Jones (LSJ)
are used, with a few exceptions for more familiar authors or works. How-
ever, works by Galen are cited in the form given in the List of titles and
abbreviations of Galen's works at the end of the book.
All references to Galenic works aceby page and line number of the most
recent critical edition, followed by the editor's name in abbreviated form,
. and (where available) by·ihe volume and page number of the older edition
of Kiihn in round brackets. The full list of Galenic titles in abbreviated
form, along with full title in Latin and English, and the abbreviations
for editors' names, is·to be found in the List of titles and abbreviations of
Galen's works. A typical reference ro TheDoctrinesofHippocrates
and Plato
might therefore be: PHP 323, 15-17 UL(V.465K.). Similarly, all Hippoc-
rates quotations are identified by the Littre.yolume and page numbers as
well as those of the recent critical edition.
As a rule, book and chapter number are not given when passages are
thus referenced with page and line number.
Throughout the actual texts trahslated in this volume, references to the
Kiihn page numbers, when available, are printed in the left-hand margin.
References to page and line numbers of the modern edition used as basis
for the translation are printed in the right-hand margin. The traditional
division of the text into chapters (as in modern editions) has been retained
in the translations.
Notes in the quotations section of CharacterTraitsand in the Textual
notes to Affectionsand Errorsand TheCapacities
of theSoul are always pre-
ceded by the part number within this volume. So, those in the Quotations
section of CharacterTraitsare numbered '2.r, etc.; those in the Textual
notes to Affectionsand Errors'3.f, etc.; and rhose in the textual notes to
TheCapacities
of theSoul,'4. I', etc.
xvi
Ncte on citationsand abbreviations xvii
The following is a list of the most common abbreviations used through-
out the volume (full titles are given in the bibliography):
ANRW =Haase and Temporini (1972-)
CIL = CorpuslnscriptionumLatinarum
CMG= CorpusMedicorum Graecorum
K. =Kiihn (1821-1833)
KRS = Kirk, Raven and Schofield (1983)
L. =Lime (1839-1861)
LS = Long and Sedley (1987)
LSJ = Liddell, Scott and Jones, Greek-English
Lexicon
SVF=vonArnim (1903-1905)
10. Generalintroduction
Galen:biographicalsummaryandposition of 'psychology'
Galen (Galenos)
was born in Pergamum in Greek-speaking Asia Minor
under the Roman Empire in 129 CE, but spent most of his mature years
(after 161) in Rome, where he probably died, some time after 200. 1 His
farher was a well-to-do architect, and his own early studies (after some
training in geometry, mathematics and the usual Greek linguistic-literary
education of the time) were in philosophy before he took up medicine.
Both philosophical and medical studies took place first in Pergamum and
then (from 149 to 157) abroad, especially in Smyrna and Alexandria.2
After four years back in Pergamum, as physician to the gladiators (157-
161), he left for Rome. In transit between the two, he also extended his
knowledge (and collection) of the herbal and mineral remedies of his time,
visiting a wide range of places, especially in the eastern Mediterranean
region, including Cyprus and Palestine. At Rome he seems quickly to have
established a reputation on the basis of public debates and demonstrations
1
Fora goodrecentsummaryof Galen'slifeand worksseeHankinson (2008c);and fora stillfullerone
Boudon-Millot (2007a) vii-xc ('Biographie').Stillvaluableas a frameworkis Hberg(1889-1897),
though with the provisos made below on date, and, more sped6cally, rhe revision to the dating of
Affections
andErrors;
seebelow,pp. 34-41; much morederailon the earlychronologyisprovidedby
Nutron (1973);for arguments in favourof a date after 210 (insteadof the traditional 199/200) for
Galen'sdeath, seeNutton (1984). Seenow alsoMattern (2013),
2
The evidence(as, to a largeextent, for the factsof Galen'sbiographymore generally)isfrom Ga-
len's own accounts; see esp. Aff Pecc.Dig.28,9-21 DB (V:41-42 K.), Lib. Prop.140-141 BM
(XIX.16-U K) and Ord.Lib. Prop,98--99 BM (XIX.57-58 K.). In Pergamumhe studied with
representatives
of allfour majorschools(Platonist,Stoic,Aristotelian,Epicurean),and with a doctor
calledSatyrus;then in Smyrnawith a Platonistphilosopher (Albinus)and another doctor, Pelops;
Pelopswasa pupil ofNumisianus, in whoseteachingGalenwasparticularlyinterested,and Jnsearch
of whichhe alsovisited Corinth and Alexandria.It is during this 'studytour' that Galen must have
acquiredhisserious_rraining
in anatomy,aswellashisknowledgeof the 'latest' physiological
theories
of the Hellenisticworld,especiallythoseof Herophilusand Erasistratus.For more detailon Galen's
anatomicaleducation,seeRocca(2008).
11. 2 Generalintroduction
(which involved anatomy as well as disquisition) and spectacular feats of
'prognosis'; and simultaneously to have gained the patronage of certain im~
portant figures in Roman society. And to this first period in Rome belongs
also the firstphase of composition of his great work on 'psychology' in
relation to physiological function, 7heDoctrinesof Hippocrates
and Plato.
He left Rome in 166 after an outbreak of plague; but returned (via a brief
period spent with the army on campaign in Aquileia) to the capital at the
summons of the imperial family in 169; and probably spent the rest of
his professional life there, much of it working with the status of physician
within the imperial family. It is to this second period in Rome, and more
specificallyto that part of it which coincided with the emperor Marcus Au-
relius'absence on military campaign (169-176), that the composition of a
large part of Galen's major medical and scientific works can be dated. The
works assembled in the present volume, however, probably belong rather
to Galen's later life, the earliest of them written after 192.
In spite of losses (some of them detailed in Avoiding Distress,below
pp. 84-87), the extent of Galen's surviving works is huge, with treatises of
more than a hundred pages - in several cases, many hundreds of pages -
devoted to each of: lo"gfc
and scientific method; anatomy; physiology; the-
ory of the fundamental elements (or mixtures); disease classification; tech-
niques of diagnosis and prognosis (in particular by the pulse); therapeutics;
'hygienic' (i.e. the maintenance of a healthy lifestyle - diet in its broadest
sense); pharmacology or drug lore; and last, but by no means least, com-
mentary on works by Hippocrates. Aga,in,the works in this volume belong
not to that huge body of medical/scientific (or scholarly) work, but to a
smaller-scale,more 1
occasionar type of literary production. 3
Galen had a serious engagement with philosophy, which was for him
both an additional accomplishment, to be taken as seriously as his medi-
cal work,4 and something intimately (and complicatedly) involved with
3 Seefurtherbelow,pp. 10~15on genre.The abovesummaryis basicallyof the works that survive,
althoughin someofthosecategories(esp.that of logic)therearesignificantworksthat do not; and
therearealsocasesofworksthat surviveonlyin Arabicand/or onlyin fragmentaryform.Inaddition
to thislist,there is quite a largenumber of 'occasional'or shorter philosophicalworks,similarto
thoseinthisyolume,that do not survive;and wholecategoriesofworks (esp.scholarlyoneson use
oflanguage
and on rhetoric,and summariesor commentarieson philosopherssuch as Plato,Aris-
totleandTheophrastus)
whichhaveperishedalmostcompletely(a commenta,ryon Plato'sTitnaeus
survives
in fragmentaryform).Seeesp,Lib.Prop.chs. 15-20 [12-17], with discussionof genresof
Galen's
worksbelowpp. 10-15, aswellas Galen'sown accoumof the workslost in the firein 192,
Ind.5-11BJP.
4 The importanceof philosophyin Galen'sself-imageis famouslyillustrated by the perception of
him which,in his self-publicizing
work Prognosis,
he attributes to the Emperor MarcusAurelius:
'firstamongdoctors,but the onlyphilosopher',Praen.128,28N. (XJV.660K). It should also be
Generalintroduction 3
and informing his medical and scientific thought. Indeed, how far, how
successfully, and in precisely what ways various philosophical discourses
are assimilated into his medical-scientific thought is a major question for
Galenic studies, as we shall see - at least in the context of his works of
psychology - in what follows. The main contexts in which philosophy
surfaces in his work are those of (a) logic and scientific method; and (b)
the soul.5 It is to this latter context that the works in this volume essentially
belong.
Now, it should be understood at the outset that the English terms 'soul'
and 'psychology' both refer, in Greek terms, to the same subject area: that
of the psuchi!.This term, though indeed usually translated 'soul', corre-
sponds to .a range of connected concepts in Greek, the central of which
could more accurately be translated 'mind'. Even the term 'mind', how-
ever, is really too narrow, since psuchein Greek biological thought - and in
particular in Galen - is responsible for a range of physiological functions;
and indeed not just 'neurological' ones (to use an anachronistic modern
approximation) but also a number of other functions necessary for the
maintenance oflife. In 7heDoctrinesofHippocrates
andPlatothe functions
of both heart and liver are, in a sense, 'soul'-functions. Relatedly, the term
psuchi!- in borh traditional and philosophical usage has a fundamental
connotation, not just of'mental' or 'emotional' activity, but of'life' or 'that
by virtue of which one is alive'.
There can thus be - as neither the term 'soul-theory' nor the term
'psychology' would readily suggest - both a philosophical and a medical
discourse regarding the soul in Greek (and the latter in the senses both
of a physiological theory and of a medical psychopathology and psycho-
therapy); and indeed Galen engages in both (or, all three). In the area of
soul/psychology, then, as we shall see, that question of 'assimilation' of
philosophy to medicine is particularly complex. For the question of op-
position and/or assimilation arises, not just in relation to discussion of the
soul versusdiscussion of more obviously medical/scientific matters, but
also within Galen's discussions of the soul themselves, since the 'soul' can
mentioned that this self-imageis not a straightforwardone, and that there are timeswhen Galen
seemsto put himselfin a group whichisaggressively
opposedto 'philosophers';seebelow,Ajf Pecc.
Dig. 51,23 DB (/.75 K); 59, 23-27, DB (V.88K); 62,6 DB (V.92K); 67.10 DB (/.101K); and
(though controversially)
68,5 DB (V.104K), with notes.Fordetaileddiscussionof thissubjectsee
nowSinger(2014),
5
But discussionof the fundamentalcomponents(elementsor qualities)of both the universeand the
human body was a topic within the philosophical
tradition; and Galen drawson this tradition in
his own discussionof thesequestions.This, too, then, can be viewedas in a sensea philosophical
discourse.
12. 4 Generalintroduction
be viewed both in a physiological light (explaining aspects of the function-
ing of the body) and in a moral or ethical light. In the latter case, moreover,
connections may or may not - in different contexts - be made between the
nature of the soul and the state of the body.
Tue works in the present volume belong in the category of 'philosophy',
and are so categorized by Galen himself.6 They seem clearly distinct in
kind from those works in which Galen goes into the details of medical,
physiological ot anatomical questions, and in particular from the works
which represent the core of his medical curriculum; the distinction will
become clearer in what follows (pp. 11-13). At the same time, one must
acknowledge that such boundaries of genre or theme are not rigid in Ga-
len; and that The Capacitiesof the Soul (QAM), in particular, shows con-
siderable overlap in content and sryle with Mixtures - which definitely is
central to that curriculum.
Galen as philosophical writer in his cultural context
In approaching Galen's works of a philosophical character, then, and at-
. tempting to locate rherif·'ina historical and cultural context, we are faced
with a fairly complicated set of data. This complexity is due, to a very large
extent, to the multi-faceted and multifarious nature of Galen's own works
and, to a somewhat lesser extent, to the complexities of the culture of his
time. It may be helpful to identify two main types of opposition, in relation
to which Galen has, in varying ways, been placed by modern scholarship.
Tue first is that between contemporary R9man society and traditional
Greek culture; the second, which ariseswithin the latter pole of that oppo-
sition, is between the broad literary-rhetorical culture (sometimes referred
to as the 'Second Sophistic') of the Graeco-Roman world of his period and
the much more specific philosophical culture.
The second opposition, the'n, is one between the literary-rhetorical
world - the world of public debates, display speeches and highly literate
engagement with the 'classical' tradition, the world of authors like Lu-
cian, Dio of Prusa, Aelius Aristides, Maximus ofTyre - and the established
'schools' of philosophy - Stoics, Plaronists and Aristotelians, Epicureans,
Sceptics with their more technical and abstract debates?
6 Seebelow,p. 12with n. 26. •
7 One may,further, make the opposition betweeneither or both of the aboveliterarybackgrounds
and specificallymedicaltraditions of writing. Such an opposition, or relationship,is certainlyof
enormousimportancein Galen,but isnot ofgreatrelevanceto the worksconsideredin the present
volume.
Generalintroduction 5
Within this context, the relevance to Galen of the philosophical, and
more specifically of the Placonist, tradition, has tended to receive the most
scholarly attention until fairly recently. There have been attempts to char-
acterize Galen's position within a Platonic (and at points an Ariscotelian,
or 'Aristotelianizing') framework of thought; to establish the relevance of a
Stoic model of the soul and its affections (a model which Galen explicitly
rejects but which seems to intrude on his 'official' Platonist model in vari-
ous ways); and to clarify the complexities arising from Galen's synthesis,
in his 'psychology', of the terminology of Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics -
as well as the complexities arising from the synthesis of that psychology
with physiological ideas which are developments of theories of Alexan-
drian doctors. Such attempts have proceeded from a number of differenr
scholarly or philosophical standpoints. 8
These analyses are relevant to all
the opusculacontained in this volume, and alsoi in a rather different way,
to the physiological/psychological magnum opus, TheDoctrinesofHippoc-
ratesand Plato (PHP). We shall consider this area of enquiry below, in the
context of the relationship between rhe disparate works brought together
here, pp. 18-33; and we shall look in more detail at the philosophical posi-
tions and alignments of each text in the individual introductions.
The other pole of our second opposition, that is to say, the lirerary cul-
ture known as the 'Second Sophistic', has also received considerable at-
tention in more recent years. The question posed by our first opposition -
Greek culture versusRoman Empire - has also been the focus of some
scholarly attention. In this latter context) some have pointed to Galen's
apparent isolation from Roman society (even while working at its very
heatt-wirhin the Imperial court); his insistence on Greek culture; his pre-
dominantly Greek and/or 'Eastern' social milieu.9 Tue impression of social
insularity may seem to be heightened by a sorr of temporal insularity: his
8
For analysisof Galen's philosophicalpsychologyor soul-theory,see esp. Garcia Ballester(1972),
(1988);Donini(1974).(1980),(1982).(1988).(1992),(1995),(2008);M,nuli ru,dVegetti(1977);
Mornux(1981),(1984),(1985);Vegetti(1984).(1986/19996);M,nuli (1986).(1988).(1993);De
Lacy(1988);Lloyd(1988); Hankinson(1991c), (1991d). (1992). (1993). (2006); Singe,(1991).
(1992);Nickel(1993);Gill (1998),(2007a),(2010);vonSraden(2000);vander Eijk(2009);Jouan-
na (2009).(Amongthese,the workof Gilland Hankinson inparticularanalysesGalen'spsychologi-
calthought in wayswhich bring it into explicitrelationwith modernphilosophicalcategories.)See
alsoTieleman(1996a), (2003a),(2003b) foran attempt to locateGalenin a specifically
Hellenistic
and post-Hellenisticdoxographical
tradition. For analysisof Galen'sphilosophyin relation to the
areasof logic,epistemologyand scientificmethod, see esp. Frede (1981), (1985); Barnes(1991),
(1993),(2003);Hankinson(1991a), (19916). (1994a),(1997),(1999),(20086),
9
In particularSwain(1996),esp.362-379, whoseesGalenas fundamentallyhostileto, insecurein,
and insulatedfromthe Romanenvironment;and points to hissocialandculturalalignmentwith the
Greek East,familiaritywith the literaryproductionsof the greatGreekauthors (Plurarch,Lucian,
AeliusAristides,etc.) of hisperiod, and apparentmdenessabout Romaneducation.
13. 6 Generalintroduction
tendency to engage in debate, explicitly, with philosophers or doctors from
a more or less distant past, rather than with those around him in Rome.
Thus, it is Chrysippus (not contemporary Stoics) char he attacks, openly
and in detail, regarding Stoic doctrine, and Plato (not the Platonists of his
own time) that he enlists as sharing his opinions, It is certainly true that
more recent, even contemporary, figures are mentioned from time ro time
in his work, but usually anonymously, and often in vague terms; and even
where, as at the beginning of Affections,a specific contemporary philoso-
pher is mentioned by name-which is quite a rare case - insufficient detail
isgiven to enable us to construct any clear picture of him; as the argument
unfolds (here, as also in lhe Capacitiesof the Soul and CharacterTraits)the
concrete individuals mentioned and named are Plato and others from the
classicalpast.
One may feel, though, on closer consideration, chat both these forms of
'insularity' are more illusory than real. In the latter, Galen is using 'the an-
cients' coconduct contemporary debates. 10
Although, in (for example) Af
factionsand Errors('people professing philosophy', etc.) and lhe Capacities
oftheSoul('so-called Platonists'), 11 his contemporary opponents ate shady,
unnamed individuals, it can hardly be doubted that these contemporary
individuals werethe target of his writing.12
Jtist as Galen's 'temporal isolation', then, is something of a smokescreen
(and often a frustrating one, making it impossible to know who, actually,
Galen is talking to or about), so too the opposition 'Roman society versus
Greek culture' may tend to disappear. on closer analysis. The insistence
on a distinctively Greek culture is certainly. an interesting phenomenon
of Galen's time, and one to .which he enthusiastically subscribes (it is, for
example, difficult to find any clear evidence that he read a Latin author);
and there was undoubtedly a certain cultural snobbishness in play. At the
same time Rome, specifically, and Roman Imperial institutions more gen-
erally,provide the frameworkfor Galen's extraordinarily successful career;
there was, arguably, considerable permeability of the two cultures, and
lO Thisphenomenon{withthe related difficultyof getting clearinformation about his actual con~
temporaries)
hasbeenanalysedin differentwaysby Manuli (1984),(1986),Vegetti(1986/1999b),
(1999a),(2002);Lloyd(1993);seealsoNutton (2004) 208-215; Tieleman(2009),
11 On the'MiddlePlatonist'and Aristotelianindividualswho providethe backgroundto TheCapaci~
tiesoftheSoulseethe introductionto that treatisebelow,pp, 359ff,
12 Thereisa parallelwith Galen'sMixtures,
whereconsiderableattention is devotedto the refutation
of certaindoctrinesregardingthe number of differentmixturesin the body,and which isbest;al~
thoughno dear informationisgivenaboutthe personswhohold thesedoctrines,it seemsdear that
theargumenthasarisenin relationto actualdebatesgoingon in Romeat the time, On Mixtures
in
relationto itsintendedaudience,seenowvan der Eijk(2013);and c£ Singer(2014).
Generalintroduction 7
transfer of information between them; one very prominent function· of
the Roman Empire in Galen's time was precisely that of supporting and
providing stability for specifically Greek cultural institutions, especially in
the East but also in Rome itself;13
and Galen can be seen, in fact, as one
of the most successful beneficiaries (or exploiters) of the set-up which can
be crudely characterized as 'Roman power patronizes Greek culrure.' 14 It
must, s·urely,be acknowledged that Galen excelsspectacularly at using his
specifically Greek skills of philosophically based argumentation - and of
medical expertise in a way which brings him status and influence in
Rome; and, further, that he excels at this precisely in that intensely com-
petitive environment which was specific to the Graeco-Roman world of
his time -.the same competitive environment in which Dio, Maximus,
Aelius and Polemo also excelled, and by the same kind of process of po-
lemical, public engagement - albeit with a very different kind of claim to
knowledge. 15
That, in a sense, provides the clearest answer to the nature of
Galen's relationship, both with Rome and with (whether one approves the
term or not) the 'Second Sophistic'.
A parallel question, then, arises when we consider Galen's works, espe-
cially those in the popular-moral vein. More specifically: to what extent
is he engaging, in a quasi-medical way, with the world around him, with
the problems which arise among his acquaintances and in (mainly Roman)
society, and to what extent rather with the world of Greek philosophical
texts and the problems which arise within schools - the technical debates
over thorny issues?The question is in a sense unanswerable: we have, as it
were, only his word for it that the philosophical concepts and debates he
engages in wereimportant among his friends and society in the way that
he says they were. Certainly, a classical Greek philosophical language - a
set of terms which have mostly existed in the philosophical tradition for
four hundred years or more, albeit (arguably) developed in subtly different
13
Seee.g.Marrou (1956)265 ff. (on the adoptionof Greekeducationalnormsby the Romans);ibid
293-294 (on the extent to which the RomanEmpiresupportedand perpetuatedGreeknotions of
civilization),
14
See Flemming{2007)esp. 245-247; her assessment- as also that of Nutton (2004) - provides
an opposingperspectiveto that of Swain(1996), cited inn, 9 above.For further analysesof this
culturalenvironment, seeesp, Bowersock(1969), Reardon (1971), Gleason(1995),Too (2001),
Whitmarsh(2001),Trapp (2007), Gold.hill(2009); and specifically
on Galen,the essayscollected
in Gill, Whitmarsh and Wilkins (2009). More broadlyon issuesrelatingto bilingualismin che
ancientRomanworld, seeAdams,Janse,Swain(2002);Adams(2003).
15
For discussionof Galen'ssuccessin the competitivearena (includingboth verbaland anatomical
displays)seeBarton (1994)eh. 3, Debru (1995),von Staden(1995),(1997b),Hankinson(2008c),
Lloyd(2008),Gleason(2009);and aboveallGalen'sownself~publicizing
accountsin Prognosis
and
TheDoctrines
ofHippocmtes
andPl.ato,
14. 8 Generalintroduction
directions during the Roman Imperial period - provides the categories
which Galen uses in his analysis of contemporary individuals' actions and
'affections'. 16 Moreover - a point which will be developed further in the
introduction to Affectionsand Errors- this language, in relation to human
emotion, is lacking in richness and variety when compared with that em-
ployed by some of his near-contemporaries within the same philosophical
tradition (Plutarch, Epictetus, MarcusAurel1us). In other words, there are,
arguably, other authors who have adapted the philosophical language in
more subtle ways to the phenomena they are uying to address.
Still, Galen presents us with vivid anecdotes which suggest that, in
his mind and in the minds of at least some of the people around him,
the philosophical language he employs does have a genuine contempo-
rary significance. In the consideration of the 'social reality' underlying
such texts, we may argue, too, that writers such as Plutarch, and even
more so Epictetus - who ran a school in the provinces to which individu-
als, including wealthy or important Roman citizens) could) in theory at
least, 'retreat' from public life in the attempt to gain peace of mind) or
'cure their souls) - provide evidence for a genuine social context to this
kind of discourse. Still more so, arguably, the spectacular - and directly
contemporary - example of Marcus Aurelius: one can hardly, it might
be thought, have better evidence of the social and political relevance of
Greek ethical philosophy than the production of a work in that category
by the incumbent Emperor. 17 ·
So, Galen is employing the (traditional) philosophical language of his
culture as the glass in which contemporary society is reflected - however
adequate or inadequate one may feel that glassto be. An interesting further
question then arises (related to those considered above) as to whether this
language, and the project of improvement which Galen proposes, is one
that may have been applied - by Galen, at least within the 'Greek', or
Greek-speaking, community,, rather than that of Romans. The answer to
16 For various aspects of the adaptation of Greek philosophy to the Roman context see Griffin and
Barnes (1989), Braund and Gill (1997), Barnes and Griffin (1997); also Rutherford (1989); for
Roman ethical norms more generally,and from a not specificallyphilosophical perspective, see
Edwards(1993),
17 One may,rno, wishto takean examplefrom acouple of generationsbeforeGalen - one which does,
in a sense,crossthe divide betweenGreek and Roman culture - that of Seneca.On such parallels,
seebelow,pp. 210-217. Suchexamples,however,do not simply confirm the 'relevance'thesis,but
arguably raise problems for it, in a way which we do not have space to explorehere. One might
wish to say, for example, that the particular way in which Marcus Aurelius deploys those ethical
concepts - put crudely, the absence from his text of anything of clearly contemporary political
relevance- points awayfrom the 'real' contemporary importance of that philosophical project. For
recent discussionsof MarcusAureliussee Rutherford (1989); Gill (2007b).
Generalintroduction 9
this must be speculative. It is true that most of the people Galen explicitly
addresses in Affectionsand Errorsare probably in some sense Greek (on the
personaeof that text see below, pp. 218-219); on the other hand, there is
the prominent example given of the Emperor Hadrian (not that anyone is
actually attempting to cure his anger); and, in facti the world of the trea-
tise's personaeand addressees· is too shady to admit of any predsion. 18 If
Galen's dismay at, or contempt for, the corrupt souls of those about him is
to some extent also a contempt for the specifically Roman nature of those
souls, that is a theme that is so deeply submerged as not to be clear in the
texts that we have.
Perhaps, though, it is legitimate to point out that the 'powerful peo-
ple', attendance upon whom is a sufficient condition for being regarded
as corrupt, would be overwhelmingly Roman people; and perhaps it is
true, too, that the kinds of dinner-party excess adverted co may be more
specifically Roman than Greek (the corruption of the capital, as opposed
to the comparatively innocent ways of places outside it, was, of course, a
commonplace already in Galen's time). Whether the dismissive remarks
about people's education these days, about people being unable to follow
the simplest logical argument, and about people with false pretentious
to philosophy, have specifically Roman individuals in their sights, again,
the text does not allow us to answer. Certainly it is a specifically Greek
education that is needed to solve these problems; but the remark to the
effect that any layman with 'the kind of education approved by the Greeks
from the beginning' would be superior to these soi-disant philosophers
may express a nostalgia for a time when this education could (suppos-
edly) be taken for granted, rather than for a place distinct from Rome -
let alone a comment on the education of Romans as opposed to Greeks
within Rome. 19
18
On the societywithin which Galen moved see now Schlange-Sch6ningen(2003), The most vivid
picture of Galen'sinvolvementwith actual individualsremains his own account in Prognosis,
which
doesinclude 'Greeks' (Eudemus, in facta fellowPergamene)and 'Romans' (SergiusPaulus, Flavius
Boethus-both men of high rank), though the latter arealsoimbued with Greekculture. That work
in any caserelatesto Galen'searliest period in Rome, and specificallychronicleshis riseto favour
within the higher echelonsof Roman society.For more detail on the personalitiesinvolved,see the
notes on the relevantindividuals in Nutton (1979); and see now Singer(2014),
19
Aff. Pecc.
Dig.52,1 DB (V.75 K), p. 296 below,with n. 82. Seethe remark in the prefaceto Lib.
Prop.135,6-9 BM (XIX.9 K): 'This kind of lazinessexisted many years ago too, when I wasa
young man, but it had not yet reached the extremestate it has now'; and indeed, earlierin the same
passage, 134,14-135,2 BM (XIX.9 K), the terms in which someone is praised who was able cor-
rectlyto identifya work as inauthentic 'Galen': 'schooledin the fundamental earlyeducation which
Greek children alwaysused to be givenby teachersof grammar and rhetoric'.
15. General introduction
Galen's literary production: genre and orality
Genre
Let us try to be a bit more specific as to how the above phenomena relate
to our actual texts, and in the process attempt to investigate a little more
of their genres.
The category of 'gen~·l is an important one in relation to Galen, but at
the same time a problematic one. We can detect large differences in the
sryle, intellectual tradition and, apparently, audience and context of pro-
duction of different Galenic works. Galen works simultaneously within a
tradition of medical writing that stretches back to the Hippocratic corpus,
while also being informed by a vast range of treatises and intellectual de-
velopments of the Hellenistic period, and a tradition of philosophical writ-
ing which stretches back to Plato, and is at least equally diverse. He also
shows some literary features which belong very much to the culture of his
own period. It is not, however, the case that there is any set of clear genre-
categories into which any given work can be fitted;20
nor is the relationship
between written text a'rid
oral presentation a clear one - though it is clear
chat there is some such relationship.
Three things, at least, may be stated fairly uncontroversially: first, that
the social realiry of public debate provid_esone crucially important frame-
work for the understanding of Galen's literary production: 21
secondly,
chat there are certain pre-existing sryle.sof literary production, with which
Galen's works have a (more or less complicated) relationship; thirdly,·that,
in relation to both these frameworks, Galen presents his own very particu-
lar 'take' - partly because of his very discursive argumentative style, which
is difficult to discipline within a formal structure, and partly because of
his peculiar intellectual interests and projects. No other author that we
know of combines serious phifosophical ambitions, advanced knowledge
of medical theory and practice, and a sophisticated scholarly engagement
20 SeeSchenkeveld(1997) foran analysisof'genres'of 'philosophicalprose'within the rhetoricalcon~
text.While such an account (includingsuch termsasprQtreptikos,
parainesis,
diatribe,thesis)
seems
to be the closestwecan getto a viewof the officiallyestablished'genres'in Galen'stime, it emerges
fromsuchanalysishowfluid(andin somecasesrelianton laterinterpretatioii)-these
categoriesare-
a caution which is re-emphasized,in the particularcaseof Galen, by the very dear and incisive
analysisofvon Staden (1998), esp. 91-92. Seenow also Curtis (2009) for further explorationof
genrein Galen;and c£ Nutton (1972)56 ff.and (1979)59 ff.on the problematicgenreofPrognl)sis
in relationto the categoryofaurobiographyand to other kindsofcontemporaryparallelin the field
of'moral diatribe',e.g.worksbyLucian.
21 Seefurther below,esp.n. 30,
General introduction 11
with the writings and usage of previous authors; and combines all the
above with the public-debating context already discussed.
Valuable information on the way in which Galen himself categorized his
works is contained in My Own Booksand 7heOrderof My Own Books-
but perhaps not, for the purposes of the present discussion, as much as we
would like. The headings under which works are placed, in the different
chapters of these works, are largely those of theme and content. The actual
terms Galen uses to describe the works are of limited usefulness.22 Neither
the chapter headings nor these terms cell us much about the nature of the
works from the point of view of their intended audience or readership - or
of Galen's own view of their 'genre'. On the other hand, Galen does explic-
itly address.the distinction between works originally intended as notes for
himself and/or friends, and those intended for wider circulation. There are,
further, the named addressees of a number of works, 'Bassus', 'Glaucon',
etc., which in a sense put them in an epistolary tradition. 23
More concretely, there is a broad distinction, arising from these auto-
bibliographical listings, between works which can be seen as part of a
'core' medical curriculum, and those under other headings. The ones in
the former category include works of logic, anatomy, physiology, disease
classification and diagnosis, etc.; and there is a further sub-category of
works 'for beginners'. These, then, can be seen as bearing some relationship
(whether as records of public lectures, or as reading matter) to a course
of study. 7he OrderofMy Own Books,which was written earlier than My
Own Books,actually stares that none of his works was originally intended
for publication: they were either for friends, and in that case aimed at the
particular friend's level, or for beginners.24 He proceeds to talk of works
written to refute doctrinaire advocates of sects; there is an implication that
such works 'of more combative character' belong more properly to the
context of public debate, 7heOrderofMy OwnBooks- obviously enough,
22
The most common terms are bib/ion('book' in a very broad sense),sungramma('composition',
perhapswith strongerconnotationsof an elaboratedpieceofwriting),pragmatda('treatise',again
with more technicalor theoreticalconnotations)or hupomnimata('notes'or 'commentaries'- the
term isdiscussedat greaterlengthbelow,n. 40). But c£ againvon Staden(l 998)67 ff.,who iseven
lessoptimisticabout the usefulnessof thesedistinctions,and regardsthe differentterms,of which
he givesa fulleraccount, as largelyinterchangeable.On the questionof audiencesand addressees
seenowalsovander Eijk(2013).
23
To framea pieceof writing,usuallyon somekind of moral themeor advisorytheme, asa letter to
a specificindividual,whilein factintending it forwiderpublication,wasa well~escablished
literary
trope {although,again, the useGalen puts it to, in somecases,with worksof a medicalnature is
unusual);and, as we shall see below,pp. 51, 62, 213-215, parallelscan be made betweenboth
Affectil)nr
1mdErrl)rs
andAvl)idingDiJtress
and certainworksof Plutarch.
" O,d. Hb. Prop.
88,6-10 BM (XIX.49-50 K.).
16. 12 Generalintroduction
in relation to its purpose - cakes further than My Own Booksthe notion of
a 'core curriculum' of books to be read by the student, and the paedagogi-
cally appropriate order in which this should be done. It is also true that
the absence from TheOrderofMy Own Booksof some books which do not
belong within this 'core' may be due to its earlier date.
On either analysis - conceptual non-centrality, or lateness of date - we
are left, then, with various categories of Works, distinguished by Galen
himself, and appearing in the later chapters of My Own Books,but not in
TheOrderofMy Own Books- works which Galen himself sees as belonging
outside the broad medical curriculum; as, in some sense, 'extra' to the main
body of his medical activity or oeuvre. 25
Now, these 'extra>categories are of particular interest to us in this volume,
since all the works here translated belong within them. Specifically, chapters
15 [12] and 16 [13] of My Own Booksare headed, respectively, 'Books of
ethical philosophy' and 'Works concerning the philosophy of Plato'. Affec-
tionsand Errors,AvoidingDistress
and CharacterTraitsare listed under the
former head; The Capacitiesof the Soul under the latter.26 This latter list
also contains TheDoctrinesofHippocrates
and Plato- interestingly, in view
of the connections, which we shall explore below, pp. 30-33 and 344 ff.,
between the two works. Under Galen's own classification, then, these latter
two belong within the more theoretical realm of works relevant to Plato
(though TheDoctrinesof Hippocrates
and Platoappears under other head-
ings as well).27 The 'moral-philosophy' ones, meanwhile, include 'letters',
25 But it is important to note in this context that this 'e.xtra'status does not apply to allworks of
philosophy: the lost work Demonstration
has a special·scitus,in 1he OrderofMy Own Bookr,as
(ideally)necessaryfor the doctor, if he wisheshis learning to proceed from proper foundations; a
whole range of other more detailed works on logicalquestions; mentioned at Lib.Prop.164-169
BM (XIX.4l-45 K.),areclearlynot of this n;-i.rure,
and in somecasesweredone 'purelyasa personal
exercise'. ·
26 Lib,Prop.169-171 BM (XIX.45-47K):AffectiomandErrors,
Character
TraitsandAvoiding
Distress
are the first,second and fourth itemsfo eh. 15 [12];all the others there mentioned are lost. The ac-
rual chapter heading is a conjecture by Millier,which Boudon-Millot omits; still, the introducwry
clause,'My viewson the issuesof ethical philosophy.,,', summarizesthe content just as well. The
adjective'ethical' (ithikos)in Greek is, interestingly,derived from the term 'character' or 'character
trait' (ethos)
- the subject of the secondwork in the present volume.
NB: the chapter numbers in Boudon-Mil!or'sedition of My OumBooksdiffer after eh, 2 from
those used in previouseditions, becauseof insertions due to the recently discoveredVlatadon Co-
dex: a new chapter division,'3', at the beginning ofrhe period after the return from Rome to Per-
gamum, at 141,6 BM (XlX.17K.) and two new chapters, '5' and '6', covering,roughly,physiology
and the physicalcomposition of the body,at 152-156 BM (XIX.30K.). For chapter numbers after
2, then, I cite the new number but retain the old one (whereexistent) in square brackets, for the
convenienceof those consulting previouseditions or translations.
27 Thelistofworksrelevantto Plato includesamongother things acommentary (extantin fragmentary
form) on medicalstatements in the Timaeus;
eight books of summary of Plato'sdialogues;a discus-
sion of 'AnalogicalProceduresin the Philebul,Apart from TheDoctrintsofHippocrates
andPlato,
Generalintroduction 13
discussions of very specific behavioural matters, avowedly autobiographical
material, records of particular debates, and a number of works specifically
discussing aspects of the public-debate situation (the titles are in some cases
reminiscent of some of Plucarch's).28 We seem here to have, in the case of
eh. 16 [13], works which belong almost within a school-discussion context;
and, in eh. 15 [12], a distinct category of work which is very much for the
laypersbn - albeit (in most cases) a layperson at least literate in philosophy.
A, we shall see, the text of Affectionsand Errorsitself makes clear the extem-
pore, public-debate context in which it (and other discussions referred to
within it) arose; and both this text and AvoidingDistressframe themselves
in an epistolary style, as written responses to a particular individual's ques-
tion. In any case, the first three works in the present volume (AvoidingDis-
tress,CharacterTraits,Affectionsand Errors)in some sense belong together
as 'ethical' works; AvoidingDistress,indeed, could be seen as providing a
more specific account of one of the single affections discussed in more gen-
eral terms in Affectionsand Errors.Gill has discussed some points of com-
parison between these three ethical works and particular works elsewhere
in the Greek ethical tradition, e.g. by Plucarch; 29 we shall consider Galen's
TheCapacities
of theSouland the fragmencarycommentary, all the workslisted in this chapter are
lost. 1heDoctrines
ofHippocrates
andPlatoisalsomentioned in chs 1and 3 {2]ofMy OwnBooks,
in
a chronologicalordering, which precedesthe thematic one: it isone of those workspartiallywritten
during his first stay in Rome, and completed during his second stay:Lib.Prop.139,27-140,2 BM
(XIX.15K.); 143,9-10 BM (XIX.20K). Itisalso, in a wayconsistentwith thislatter citation, men-
tioned in the context of the thematic account (books'containing the activitiesand functions of the
parts manifestin dissection')in eh. 5 ofMyOwnBooks:
Lib.Prop.155,8-10 BM. (Thisphysiologi-
cal part ofMy OumBook/thematic account at 154,16-155,12 BM waspreviouslywhollymissing,
and has now been supplied from the Vlatadon Codex, which has filled the lacuna ar XIX.30K.
One may compare with this also the referenceto works dealingwith activities,both 'of nature' and
'of the soul', at Ord Lib.Prop.92,19 ff. BM (XIX..54-55K), where the 'larger number' of works
d7alingwith the latter would seemto include 1heDoctrines
ofHippocrates
andPlato,though it isnoc
mentioned explicitly.)It isnot, then, the casethat there isno overlapbetweenthe worksmentioned
in these 'extra' categories in the latter chapters of My OwnBooksand the 'core curriculum'; and
presumably TheDoctrines
ofHippocrates
andPlatoappears in both because,while indeed a crucial
work of Galen'sphysiology,it is also in a different sense a scholarlywork addressedto some quite
specializedareasof Platonicscholarship. In any case, though, such overlapis rare;and the remain-
ing works in chs 15 [12] and 16 [13], as wellas those in eh, 17 [14] (relatedt0 Aristotle), 18 [15]
(related to Stoics), 19 {16](related ro Epicurus) and 20 [17] (linguisticand rhetorical·interest)do
not seem to be mentioned anywhere else.
28
, Among the titles (of lost works) in eh. 15 [12] (169-170 BM, XIX.45-46 K.), which emphasize
quite how 'occasional' or context-specificsuch works could be, are: 'The relationship with their
hearers of those making public demonstrations'; 'On the discourse [diatribe]
with Bacdtldes and
Cyrus in the house of Menarchus' (but c£ below,p. 92 n. 93); 'To orators in the forum'; 'Things
said in public against flatterers';'Slander,containing also materialon my own life';'Things said in
public in the time of Pertinax';'To wharexrent one should worry about one'sesteemand reputation
amongst the many'; 'The making ofwiUs'.
29
SeeGil! (2010)esp. 246 ff.
17. 14 Generalintroduction
relationship with this type of writing in more derail below) in the introduc-
tion to Affectionsand Errors,pp. 207-217.
The movement or cultural phenomenon known as the 'Second Sophis-
tic', then, as well as, more broadly, the Greek rhetorical-literary culture
(including educational institutions) of the Roman Empire in the second
century CE, should be seen as the formative (and informative) back-
ground to the various categories of Galen'sliterary production, without
in any way giving an ,exhaustive explanation of that production, or even
clear-cut genre descriptions for most of his works. The most concrete
points to note here are: (1) the context of public demonstration and de-
bate on set themes:30 these appear both in the oppositional, sometimes
tendentious way in which the argument is framed fro-m the outset, and
also in the fact that our written version of the text often bears definite
signs of a relationship with an oral perhaps in some cases extempore -
presentation; (2) certain literary-rhetorical habits which can be seen
within the context of the rhetorical education of the period. Under this
second head, most clearly identifiable are: (a) the use of quotation from
authority in support of an argument; (6) the specific 'classic' authors used
in quotation; (c) a Wide range of rhetorical techniques used in the at-
tack on the opponent's point of view. Perhaps oddly, this aspect (which
at some level is obvious to any reader of Galen) has not received direct
attention in the scholarly literature. While everyone is aware of the 'rhe-
torical' nature of Galen's texts, they have not been subjected to a direct
analysis in rhetorical terms, or one wP;ichcompares them stylistically with
other 'rhetots' of the period (e.g. Dio). 31 Perhaps it will here suffice to
mention the very lengthy expositions Galen devotes to the fallacies of
his opponents; the hypothetical type of argument (whereby one adopts
one's opponents premisses, and shows that, given thesepremisses,still the
opponent is wrong32); praeteritio arguments, along the lines of:
1
it is not
my task here to refute all theil: mistakes, as that would take all day, and fill
many more books'; attributing argumentativeness to the other side Cit is
30 On this point, and for an excellentanalysisof the relevanceof public demonstration to Galen's
literaryproduction, seevon Staden(1997b);on Galen'spublic demonstrationsin anatomyseealso
von Staden(1995), Debru (1995), Gleason(2009),
31 On this point seealsothe introduction to 1heCapacities
oftheSoul,belowpp. 343 ff. But cf.now
Mattern (2008), Curtis (2009);and an interestingrecentdevelopmentis Rosen(2010), providing
points of contact betweenGalenand the literarytradition of satire.
32 This type of argument is examinedmore fully in the context of TheCapacities
of the Soul,below
pp. 346-354; and is exemplifiedalso by Galen'streatment of (in particular) Chrysippus in The
Doctrines
ofHippocrates
andPlato.
Generalintroduction 15
not my fault but theirs that I've gone on so long'); plain insult; exalting
of one's own ethos.33
Technique (a) is particularly impressive in its manifestation in The Ca-
pacitiesof the Soul, with its transition from authority of Plato to Aristotle
and to Hippocrates, as each appears best to support a particular point in
the argument. As regards (b), if one leaves aside the authors that Galen is
using tn support of very specific points of 1
doctrine', and looks at authors
he cites when in less formally philosophical mode, it is possible to show
a considerable congruence between his habits of quotation and those cur-
rent in the 'Second Sophistic'. 34There is also recourse to other types of text
that were in popular currency in the school curriculum or elsewhere at this
time; we shall, for example, encounter in Affectionsboth '.Aesop'and 'Py-
thagoras', probably in forms in which they were current in the educational
institutions of the time. 35
Orality
The point about the relationship of a text with an oral presentation is
worth exploring in a little more detail. First, as stated above, the nature of
the relationship is usually less than cleat. But in many cases Galen talks of
an argument's having arisen on a particular occasion, or of his being asked
to give a written version for a friend of some such argument; Affectionsand
Errorsin fact is an example of both these phenomena. 36 Galen also talks
not infrequently of being sidetracked, or forced to speak at greater length
than intended on a particular subject - either simply by the nature of the
errors which he is trying to refute, or specifically by someone demanding a
fuller exposition. 37 The oral nature of the compositions has another aspect,
too, namely that they were dictated. 38
33
For an analysisof Galenictextsin rhetoricalterms, highlightingthe social-historical
aspect(knowl-
edgeclaimsin relationto powerstmcrures),seeBarton(1994) eh, 3,whichdoesindeeddiscussthe
question of ethos;
seealsoCurtis (2009).
34
On Galen'srelationshipwith the literaryculture see Bowersock(1969) and Reardon (1971). His
'classicizing'
attitude to and useof the literarytradition fromHomer onwardsisstriking,as aresuch
featuresof that literary culture as the preponderanceof quotations from Euripides.It is possible,
however,that these should be regardedas featuresof a broaderGraeco-Romaneducationaltradi-
tion, rather than as belongingto something that weshould call,more sped.fically,
the 'Second So-
phistic';seeMorgan (1998) 69 ff. On other possibleliteraryrelativesof Galen,seenow alsoRosen
(2010) ,nd (2013).
35 Seebelowpp. 216-217. 36 A.ff.Pecc.
Dig.3,4-7 DB (V,l K.).
" See,.g.PHP168,26-170,2 DL (Y.287K.); Lib.P,,p.159-160 BM (XIX.33-35 K.).
38
Galen himselfmentions, at A.ff Pecc.Dig.32,17 DB (V,48K.), the importance of the training of
slavesto copy or work as amanuenses:there is further evidenceof the great importance to him
of shorthand transcribers ar Pram. 98,27-100,1 N. (XIY.630K). Of course, this method of
18. 16 Generalintroduction
We potentially have, then, in the case of a work like AffectionsandErrors,
rwo levels of orality: that of the original extempore 'answer' which Galen
(he tells us) gave on a particular occasioni and ·chatof rhe composition as
he 'remembers' and dictates it for writing-down. There could, additionally,
have been a third level, ifwe imagine that the original speech may not, in
fact, have been extempore, but perhaps delivered from notes - which again
would presumably have been dictated. 39
The term hupomntnrata - lit., 'reminders' or 'aides~mtmoire'- refers, at
least in some cases, precisely to such a relationship between the oral and
the written. Such notes may be taken to remind one of what was said, or to
assist one when making a speech or demonstration in the future. Affections
and Errorsintroduces itself as the hupomnemata of an oral response given
on a particular occasion. 40
Some works seem to have been written as display speeches (whether the
text as we have it was written down before or afterwards). The Exhortation
toStudytheArts looks like one such, as probably also TheBestDoctorisalso
a Philosopher
and Thrasybulus:
these are works of literary artifice, aimed at
a lay public, with a clear polemical aim of exalting the status of the medical
compositionwas perfectlystandard in the ancient world, and so may not seemworthy of com-
ment. Itseemsto me, however,that it isat leastworth consideringwhetherthe practice,in Galen's
particularcase,contributed to the extremelylengthyand discursivenature of histext, It isdifficult
to be quiteso readyto followa thoughtwhichis'not in the originalstructureofyour design,and to
do so ar such length, asGalen does,ifyou arewritingyourself,in long-hand- and perhapsalsoif
you do not havea public-debateor lecturingcontextconstantlyin mind. Thus,possibleobjections,
newlinesofthought, digressions,mayoccurto G~en whilespeaking;and this mayhappen both in
the contextof a publicdebateand in the contextofhiso_wl1
study,whiledictatingto a literateslave.
3,1 Thesituation in Affections
andErrors
is actuallyevenmore complicatedthan this, with more than
one oral answerrecalledor 'framed'in the literarytext;seebelowpp. 205; 218-219.
40 The term hupomnbnata
is worthy of a little further consideration.With a literal connotation of
'reminding', or aide-mbnoire,
the term can.,referto variousforms of notes, i.e. written versions
of oral texts (e.g, lectures),or notes ma?e'for oneselfwithout the intention of publication, s·ee
lib. Prop.159,10-162,11 BM (XIX.3~-'.37
K.};cf. the distinctionmade at Hipp.Prorrh.
24,9-10
Diels (XVI.532K.): mentioning a patient'sname is something Hippocrateswould do only in a
hupomnema
(here""somethinglike'case-nore'),not in a treatise(sungramnut},
The term canalsore-
ferto a 'commentary'on a text,Hupomnemata,
indeed,becomesthestandardwordforliterarycorn~
mentaries;and Galendoesuseit so forhisown commentarieson Hippocrates,in the passagecited
abovefromlib. Prop.
In that passage,though, thisusageseemsto derivepreciselyfromthe factthat
he regardedthem, originallyat least,as 'informalnotes','not for generalpublication'(cf.rhe usage
at Hipp.Prorrh.161,8-9 Diels (XVI.811K): 'Hippocrates' mngrammata
and my hupomnbnata
[on them]'). It is worth noting that a reciprocalrelationship,wherebyGalen'shupomnemata
come
to be used (perhapsin distorted form) as the basis for someone else'spublic lecture or display
(epideixis),
is alsoalludedto at lib. Prop.135,24-5 BM (XIX.10K.). For a detaileddiscussionof
the terminologyof hupomnema,
see Flemming(2008)esp. 324-326. Flemmingis not committed
ro the connectionof the term to an oral context,at leastnot in everyusageofthe term; stilllessso
von Stade11
(1998) 73, who seesno connectionof the sort which I woulddetect with the original
meaningofthe term asaide~mtmoire
(seen, 22 above).On Galen'sHippocraticcommentaryactiv-
itymore generally,
seeSmith (1979); Manuli (1984); Maneni and Roselli0994).
Generalintroduction 17
profession as Galen understood it, and of Galen in particular. It is possible
rhar TheCapacities
of theSoul should be read in rhis light too. One of Ga-
len's greatest and most interesting works, too, 1heDoctrinesofHippocrates
and Plato,is (as its content itself makes clear) something that was delivered
in the context of a public display, which included an anatomical - in fact,
a vivisectional - dimension, rather than just words. 41
Other works of a more technical sort, though we think of them as 'trea-
tises', may very well represent some sort of relationship with Galen's lec-
tures to his students. 42 We should bear in mind that there was no formal
'university', and that the group attending such lectures might be a fluid
one, including interested laypersons and intellectuals of various kinds; and
also char the period mentioned above as productive of many of Galen 1
s
greatesr works (169-176) should perhaps be seen rather as the period of
the writing-up
43 of rhese works - which may have been given in some
form in oral instruction previously. Such may, for examplei be the case
with Mixtures, the Therapeutic
Method and many of the works regarding
physiology, diagnosis and pathology (e.g. rhe works on the pulse, and on
categorization of diseases). In the case of the Hippocratic commentaries
Galen himself records a process whereby what began as works written for
his own benefit, or for friends, developed into works wirh a more avowedly
polemical intent, to refute false interpretations he had heard; 44 here too,
then, even in the case of what one might think of as a scholarly activity
confined co the study, the oral context is important, both in the sense of
the false interpretation that Galen has 'heard', and in the sense that it is
difficult to imagine that the finished works were not used in some kind of
public-debate or lecture context. Galen himself describes the procedure
whereby, in the context of public competition, a passage from a text was
chosen 'at random', and extempore comment on it required; commentary
is thus irself part of the competitive, public process.45
41
Forliteratureon thisseen. 30 above.
42
Seevander Eijk(2013) fordiscussionofaddressees
ofworksofinstruction,and the attempt to link
a set of treatiseswith a moreor lesscoherentset of readersor listeners.
43
Theconceptisdiscussedin greaterdetailbelow,pp. 36-38.
44Lib. P,-,p.159-162 BM(XIX,33-37K.).
45
, Thefollowingpassages
giveinsightsinto theoral,aswellasthe occasional,
contextofGalen'scompo-
sitions,and of the relationshipbetweenspokentextsand theirwrittenversions.Lib.Prop.134-135
BM (XIX.8-9K.): the existenceofspuriousworksof'Galen' in hisownlifetime,andpeoplepassing
offhis workas their own becausehe had circulatedit privatelywithout his name. Ibid, 135-136
BM (XIX.9-10 K.): the mistakesand mutilations which occur in such texts. Ibid., 135,18-20
BM (XIX.10K): someworkswerewritten for friendsor pupils,purelyfor them to havea record
-hupomnifmata-oflecturesrhat theyhad attended.Ibid, 136,4-13 BM (XIX10-11 K.): the par-
ticularnatureofthesetextsderivesfromthe intellectualattainmentof thepersonstheywerewritten
19. 18 Generalintroduction
Philosophical psychology within Galen's oeuvre
The individual philosophical arguments of each work are addressed in de-
tail in their specific introductions. Here we shall attempt to outline their
characteristics, and Galen's philosophical affiliations, in more general
terms, as wellas considering their relationship with each other, and with
other Galenic works not included in this volume which in different ways
address psychology.
Galen,P!atonism,Middle P!atonism
All Galen's writing on 'psychology' (unless one includes the discussion of
specifically medical psychopathological categories - see below pp. 26-28)
is, broadly speaking, Platonic. That is to say: he openly declares himself in
agreement with the theory of Plato on the soul; and insists on distinction
between rational and non-rational drives, as well as the more specific three-
fold division of the soul (rational, 'spirited' and desiderative) which appears,
in particular, in the Republic,Phaedrusand Timaeus;
and asserts the vital
importance of this division - both in the context of ethics and in the context
of the physiological activity of the soul - in particular against the Stoics.
We can say more, though, both about the specific form this Platon-
ism rakes, about problems or limitati~ns with it, and about its historical
for, Ibid.138-139BM(XIX.13-15K.): two ;o,rks o(anatomy were written i11
a 'more co~bative
spirit' in the contextof a debatewith a certainMartialius·;
an1 more suchmaterialwas1i~tated,i_n
the aftermathofa publicdemonstration,at the requestofa fnend, so that he coulduse 1tin public
againstMartialiuswhileexaminingpatients,this materialthen circulatingwidelywithout Galen's
knowledge,Ibid. 144-145 BM(X.IX,21-2i-K): a workaddressedto the errorsofLycusis thewrit-
ing-upofa publicdemonstrationchat~alfn was'forced'to make,Ibid.1~9-160 BM_
(XIX.33-35
K.): someofhis Hippocraticcommen_fa'ries
startedlifepurelyasnotes (again,hupomnemata)
on the
textswrittenasan exercisefor himself,but aftera certainpoint, workswerecomposedwith an eye
to generalpublication.PHP168,26-170,2 DL (Y.287 K.): Galenwas 'compelled'(,parebiasen)
by
a sophistwho claimedhe could not refuteall Chrysippus'argumentsto return to the subjectand
writemore,thus distortingthe structureof the work (cf.Lib.Prop.139,27-140,2 BM,XIX.15 K.:
PHPwasitselfcomposedat the behestofBoethus). Praen.
98,27-100,1 N. (XIV.630 K.): relaysof
slaveswereprovidedbythe rich patron Boethusfor Galento dictateto.
Thereis,of course,a further questionof howingenuousGalen is beingin his claimthat works
werenot intended for generalconsumption,which mayrather be of a piecewith hisclaimth~the
did not wishto make publicdemonstrations,but wascajoledinto them by friends,The denialof
anypersonalinterestin publicreputationis,to be sure,part of Galen'srhetoricalself-presentation;
furthermore,and more specifically,
the claimthat others are responsiblefor public circulationof
one'sworks,and that oneonly publishesin order to correcttheir errors,seemsto havebeensome-
thingofa topos:
seethe Prefaceto Epictetus'Dis;.,whereArrianmakesan essentially
identicalclaim.
Cf.A.ff Pecc.
Dig.5,21-22 DB (V,5 K.), whereGalenanticipatesthat that workmay 'fallinto the
handsof others'.
Generalintroduction 19
context; and then about the different form Galen's soul-theory takes in the
different works in the oeuvre,
First, we should consider Galen's Placonism in relation to other Platon-
ist writing and teaching of his period, to which, traditionally, the term
'Middle Platonism' has been applied. 46 The extent to which it is sensible
to see Galen as belonging within this specific tradirion is debated. Mini-
mally, belonging within 'Middle Platonism' may be taken to mean that
one adopts a broadly Platonic-Aristotelian synthesis, especially in 'moral
psychology', as against the common enemy of Stoicism. This does seem
to be true of Galen. The distinction of rational and non-rational faculties,
which the Stoics denied, is central, and - at least when there is no spe-
cifically anatomical or physiological point at issue - transcends the more
specific features of Plato's or of Aristotle's theory. Some have seen a specifi-
cally Middle Platonist tendency in this Platonic-Aristotelian 'bipartition',
which in a sense glosses over the differences between the philosophers,
especially in the area of Platonic tripartition, and in other aspects of the as-
similation of Aristotle to Plato. Certain ethical and theological views have
been related to Middle Platonism, too: the use of the term homoiiJsis
theoi
('approximation to god') in relation to the human good; the perception of
a gulf; with attendant problems of transition, between the divine world
and the biological realm (as suggested especially in certain passages in 7he
FunctionofthePartsoftheBodyand 7heShapingoftheEmbryo);
also, argu-
ably though not certainly and not explicitly, the doctrine of metriopatheia
('moderation of the affections'; on this see below, pp. 208 ff.). Attention
has been drawn, too, to the prominence of certain texts - especially the
Timaeus- for both Galen and the Middle Platonists. 47
One would have to admit, conversely, that the Platonic-Aristotelian
assimilation takes a distinctive - and indeed distinctively tripartite - form
in Galen, in the context of his anatomical-physiological theory.48Further,
46
for a swnmaryof 'MiddlePlatonism'- whichat the sametime urgescaution foranypossibilityof
reconstructingin anydetailedwaya 'school'whichmighthavebeenofspecificrelevanceto Galen-
seeDillon(1977/1996).
47
For varyingstatementsof thesekinds of connection,see Donini (1974), (1980), (1982), (1992),
VanderWaerdt(1985), Donini and Ferrari(2005) esp.276 ff. I alsoexploredsomesuch connec-
tionsin Singer(1992).
48
Galen is keen to assert that what Aristotlecalls the nutritive (a biologicalcategory- what ani-
mals and plants share) can be unproblematical!yequated with what Plato callsthe epithymetic
(essentially,
a moral-philosophicalcategory);and that both can be mappedonto his own tripartite
psycho-physiology
of centresof power:brain, heart, liver.In the processhe alsodeniesthe essen-
tiallymonistic(asopposedto eitherdualisticortripartite) narureofAristotle'sbiologicalthought in
this area:forAristotlethe heart is the onlyimportant such centre.On thesepoints seeManuli and
Vegetti(1977), ManuH(1986), Vegetti(1986/1999b).
20. 20 General introduction
it is surely tight to point out the enormous gulf between Galen and his
Platonic contemporaries in certain epistemological areas, and (relatedly)
in their attitude to the investigation of the natll.ralworld, on the one hand,
and to metaphysical or theological speculation, on the other. 49
In this context of Middle Platonism and of possible influences on Galen
one should mention also the philosopher Posidonius of Apamea. Posi-
donius was a Stoic philosopher of the second-first century BCE, who,
however, combined this allegiance with a syncretist approach, including
Platonist elements in his philosophy. Now, the syncretist approach itself is,
in some sense at least, a significant element both in the intellectual climate
of Galen's time and in Galen's work in particular; we shall see various ways
in which this is the case, both in this chapter and below, in the introduc-
tion to Affectionsand Errors.There is, however, a more specific proposi-
tion regarding Posidonius, namely that his 'Platonizing Stoicism' exerted
a crucial influence on Galen, particularly in the area of moral psychology.
The problem is that, although Posidonius was undoubtedly a very
significant figure, we possess his work only in fragments; and moreover
a large part of the evi~ence in the relevant areas comes, precisely, from
Galen. Although an.important influence from Posidonius cannot be ruled
out, it seems to us methodologically suspect to posit with any confidence
an influence from an earlier, non-extant author on a later one, when that
l.aterauthor is a major source of out knowledge of the predecessor - a pred-
ecessor whom he may quote selectively and fot his own purposes. Moreo-
ver, Posidonius is explicitly mentioneP. in only two of the vast number of
Galen's works: 7heDoctrinesofHippocrates
and Platoand 7heCapacities
of
theSoul.In both these (as, .in the latter case, we shall see below) he plays an
important part in a particular argument, against orthodox, Chrysippean,
Stoic psychology. The lack of a mention anywhere else - for example in the
lists in My Own Booksof texts·which Galen himself wrote commentaries
on - would seem very remarkable in the case of an author who had had
a profound and significant influence upon him. It seems more sensible,
then, to see Posidonius as an authority whom Galen uses for a particular
rhetorical purpose - an example of a Stoicwho disagrees with Stoic or-
thodoxy - than as an important figure in his intellectual formation. (The
point is also considered below, in the context of Richard Walzer's Posido-
nian interpretation of CharacterTraits.)
4~ TI1islast point is made strongly by Chiaradonna (2009), who givesa powerfulstatement of the
scepticalviewof Galen'sMiddle Platonismin general(whilealsoprovidinga usefulswnmaryof the
previousliteratureon the subject).
General introduction 21
Great care has to be exercised here, for while it is surely right to detect
points of contact between Galen and the Platonic-Aristotelian tradition of
his time, any signing-up of Galen to a particular movement willtend to
deny the undoubted originality- and at times, downright strangeness - of
his own position. It is undoubtedly true, for example, that he had his own
very particular reasons for using the Timaeus, as being the work where he
could get closest to identifying his own, specifically physiological, views
within Plato's text - a far cry from the interests of most Middle Platonists -
and that he had his own very particular interpretation of it. The same stric-
tures must apply to the attempt to see him as indebted in his expositions of
his predecessors' philosophies to doxographical 'handbooks'. 50That Galen
had his own deep, and indeed individualistic, engagement with a whole
range of texts, Platonic, Aristotelian and other - if one doubts it after
reading a text like 7heDoctrinesof Hippocrates
and Plato- is given ample
further support by the titles of a huge range of non-surviving works in My
Own Books,especially those related explicitly to the works of Plato, Aristo-
tle, Theophrastus, as well as to Stoic and Epicurean writing. 51
Distinctive aspectsof Galen~soul-theoryand ethics
In this brief summary, then, of Galen's philosophy of the soul and his
ethics, though we have started with a discussion of Platonism, we shall
identify aspects of Galen's thought which, while appearing to start under a
Platonist heading, take us away from what we would expect either of Plato
or of an 'orthodox' Platonist of his time. These aspects, then, detract from
any notion of Galen as a 'School' philosopher; they are, conversely, inter-
esting for the positive information they give us about Galen's philosophical
position(s). It will be helpful to identify four such aspects.
(1) 7hevaryingassertions
of tripartition
While it is true that a very distinctive role for the 'middle' part of the
soul, the thumoeides,is discussed, both in Affectionsand Errors5
2 and in
Character
Traits,at other times thumosappears as apathosalongside others;
5? Theargument iselaboratedin detail byTieleman (1996a) and (2003a);seealsoTieleman(20036).
51
The relevantchapters of My OumBooksare: 16 [13]-19 (16]; seen. 27 above.The material now
availablein the textAvoidingDistress
(seeesp. hid. 6,7-21 BJP)supportsand elaboratesthis point:
Galenhad extensivemanuscriptsof 'ancient' textswhichhe had himselflaboriously'markedup' as
one doesin the preparationof a newedition;seebelow,p. 82.
52
Butseethedetaileddiscussionbelow,pp. 220-228. Thoughtheroleofshamein thesubject'sprogress
is, arguably,an instanceof the roleof the thumoeides,
the explicitdiscussionof that distinctiverole
takesplace,witbinAffectiomandErrors,
onlyin thecontextof a cross-reference
to Character
Traits.
21. 22 Generalintroduction
just one of rhe affections in a list, in need of eradication. Furthermore,
tripartition takes a quite different form, which goes beyond the theory of
affections and indeed the ethical discourse altogether, in the physiological
sections of PHP, where cheprimary association of the 'middle part' of the
soul is with the heart and the fundamental animal functions (see further
(4) below).
(2) The 'intrusion'of a Stoic modelof the soul,especially
in the areaof the
theoryof affections,and in the extent to whichsoul-therapytakesplace
throughrationalmeans
If Galen were advocating an orthodox Platonic(-Aristotelian) view, the
total eradication of the affections should not be the airh; this represents,
rather, a distinctively Stoic approach. In fact, Galen never clearly states (at
least in Affectionsand Errors)whether he advocates such total eradication
or, rather, the orthodox Platonic-Aristotelian aim of metriopatheia
- mod-
eration of the affections (a term which he never uses).53 Yet a number of
instances in Affectionsand Errorsseem, at lease, to hint in the direction of
complete apatheia;so.,too, one might think, does the general thrust of the
argument of Avoiding Distress- even though, in fact, the latter work givesa
more explicit denialthan we had previously that apatheiais in fact his aim:
theoretically, Galen acknowledges the possibility of circumstances arising
which would cause him distress.
It can be argued, too, thar the whole Galenic project of self-improve-
ment looks Stoic, because of the central importance of specifically rational
engagement - the 'therapy of the word' -which seems to belong within
the Stoic 'monistic' conception of the soul and its passions. That is: there
is, on the Stoic view, no distinct 'non-rational faculty' of the soul, and so
affections are, or arise from, false judgements - ultimately, they are errors
of reason. Galen's attempt to c,:u'fe
the affections by reasoned engagement
may seem to belong within that framework, in spite of his determinedly
anti~Stoic doctrinal position. 54
53 Thepoint has beendiscussedby Hankinson (1993) 198-204, Donini (1988)and moreexplicitly
(2008) ,nd Gill (2010) esp. 259-260.
54 Identificationof other Stoic'influences'or 'intrusions'on Galen'smodelof the mind is difficult,
both becauselanguagewhichlooksdistinctivelyStoicmaybyGalen'stime_
be usedindiscriminate¥
ly betweenthe schoolsand, arguably,becausethis syncreristtendencyis somethingwhich Galen
consciouslyescalates.
Amongthe termsworthyof considerationhere arehormeand sunkatatheiis,
The problemsarisingin this area- from Galen'sattempt to abolishor ignorethe significance
of
linguisticdifferences
- werefirstexploredin a number of seminalarticlesbyManu.!i,esp.(1988),
(1993). On the doctrinaland linguisticinterrelationsbetweenthe schoolsmore generallyin the
Romanperiod, seeSedley(1980); Gill (2003); Donlni and Ferrari(2005)e.g. 274: oikeiOsis
has
become'un bene comunedellescuoledi filosofia';Donini (2008) esp. 205, n. 39 specifically
on
Generalintroduction 23
The practical implications of this may be seen in the importance ·of
doxai or dogmata - beliefs or doctrines - in affecting one's behaviour. As
will be discussed more fully in the introduction to Affectionsand Errorsi
Galen seems close to authors like Epictetus, both in this emphasis on hav-
ing the right beliefs/doctrines as a way of getting rid of affections, and even
in some of the precise phraseology used in this area. This is particularly
true of Affectionsand of Avoiding Distress.
(3) Theimportancewithin Galenicethicsof the conceptionof naturein
conjunctionwith earlyhabituation, and of the relatedconceptionof ethos
(character)
- theseconceptionsall havingsomekind ofAristotelianparentage
Galen talks often of the pairing nature/ early upbringing, as providing an
essential basis for the formation of good character. This is particularly true
of CharacterTraits,where these causative roles are given extended discus-
sion; but the importance of both surfaces also in Affectionsand Errors(with
the autobiographical account of the importance of Galen's own father).
The focus on this pairing can also be seen as bringing Galen's ethics into
line with his thinking in more clearly biological or medical areas (e.g. in
Matters of Health). The conception of ethosin CharacterTraits,as essen-
tially a result _ofa nature in conjunction with early habituation of the non-
rational parr(s) of the soul, seems indebted to Aristotle's thought in this
area - though the conception is not identical to Aristotle's.55
It is interesting that this central importance of nature-nurture seems po-
tentially to conflict with the perception outlined above under (2), namely
the Stoic-style centrality of doxai (and with the statement, albeit perhaps
not very convincing, of the possibility of improving one's character after
the age of 40 or 50 - which seems to have Stoic connections). The differ-
ence may be reconcilable: Galen in fact explicitly mentions doxai along-
side nature and nurture in Avoiding Distress;the concepts are considered
together in Affectionsand Errors;and, to look at it from the other point of
view, Stoic philosophy regards early upbringing as vital, too. It is more that
Galen, at different points, seems to draw on different technical jargons:
ethosin this kind of sense is a term from the Aristotelian ethical debate; the
'use) of doxai for self-improvement belongs within Stoic (and to an extent
other) works of popular morality from near to Galen's own time (on which
see more in the Introduction to Affectionsand Errors,below pp. 210-217).
Galen'sexploitationofthe ambiguitiesof the 'Stoic'termhonne.SeenowGill(2010)esp.eh. 5. for
a dedicateddiscussionof suchinterrelationsasa backgroundto Ga!enicthought.
55
On thispointseeGill(20I0) esp.257 ff.
