well as a philosopher (though most of his philosophical writings are
lost). Nonetheless, his philosophical bent is quite evident in his
practice of biological science.
He was a well-read scholar who combined extensive erudition with
'cutting edge' observational practice to completely change the
understanding and teaching of medicine. His position as the leading
authority in medical theory extended for at least fourteen hundred
years.
1. Life
Galen of Pergamum was a physician who was born in Pergamum was a
bustling and vibrant city at the time and was particularly famous for
its statue of Asclepius, a god of healing. Throughout Galen's life, he
avowed a devotion to Asclepius. The city also had a library that
almost rivaled Alexandria's in its size. Galen's father, Nicon, was a
prosperous architect. This allowed Galen the leisure to get an
education and choose a path of life unencumbered by the need to earn
money. However, this affluence did not mean that Galen was brought up
"soft" (as per Plato's discussion in the Republic 544b-570e in which
he discusses the devolution of political systems due to the decay of
personal arête). Galen's education was broad and directed by his
father. Galen studied in mathematics (a particular favorite of his
father), grammar, logic, and philosophy–that included inquiry into the
four major schools of the time: the Platonists, the Peripatetics, the
Stoics, and the Epicureans. This pluralistic sensibility influenced
the philosophical/scientific method of Galen. According to pluralism,
one should look at all the prevalent theories and then make up one's
own mind choosing either one of the theories or perhaps a new mixture
of those presented according to their strengths.
Galen began his study of medicine around the age of sixteen when his
father had a dream suggesting this direction. Galen traveled to Smyrna
and Corinth to study with both a Rationalist and with an Empiricist.
When Galen's father died, Galen traveled to Egypt (Alexandria) where
he lived for perhaps five years (152-157). What Galen might have
studied in Alexandria is highly speculative. However, Galen, himself,
later declares that students should "look at the human skeleton with
your own eyes. This is very easy in Alexandria, so that the physicians
of that area instruct their pupils with the aid of autopsy" (Kühn II,
220, translation L. Edelstein). This quotation points to the practice
of autopsy (dissection of cadavers) in Alexandria. Whether Galen also
studied anatomy this way is unclear. It is clear that Galen (at least)
engaged in comparative anatomy by dissecting monkeys.
In 157 Galen returned to his hometown to become a surgeon to the
gladiators. When civil unrest broke out in 162, Galen left for Rome.
The medical community in Rome was competitive and corrupt. In Rome,
Galen's ambition got the best of him with the result that his high
profile created powerful enemies who caused him to depart secretly in
166. After a couple of years in obscurity, Galen was recalled by the
Roman Emperors Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus to serve the army in
their war against the Germans. When the plague hit Rome, Galen was
made personal physician to Marcus Aurelius and Aurelius' son,
Commodus. For many years it has been held that Galen remained in Roman
society until his death around 199-200 (based upon the Suda Lexicon
written around 1000); however, new research by Vivian Nutton has
persuasively set the date of Galen's death much later. Nutton proposes
that Galen may have lived into his eighties (possibly as old as 87).
The source for this new information comes from Byzantine and Arab
scholars from the sixth century onwards. On the basis of this, it
seems that Galen died around 216, give or take several years, in the
reign of Caracalla.
A great many of Galen's works have survived. The Kühn edition of Galen
(Greek with a Latin translation) runs over 20,000 pages. There are
other Galenic works that only exist in Arabic translations. However,
many of Galen's works are lost, e.g., many of his treatises on
philosophy (logic, physics, and ethics) perished in a fire that
consumed the Temple of Peace in 191.
2. Hellenistic Schools of Medicine
During the end of the fourth century BCE and throughout the third
century BCE there were enormous advances in medicine revolving around
the principal practitioners: Diocles, Praxagoras, Herophilus, and
Erasistratus. During this period the debate about the relative roles
of theory and observation were central to these writers (Kühn X, 107).
It is, in fact, a perennial question in the philosophy of science.
What is at issue is when does one impose a theoretical structure on
the world? Part of the answer concerns the origins of the theoretical
structure. From whence did it arise? In part, this is a struggle for a
logic of induction that might assist the practitioner. Without such a
theory of inductive logic, it is unclear whether nature is revealing
her nature to the careful observer or whether the observer is imposing
his own ideas upon nature. Aristotle discusses some of these issues in
Posterior Analytics II.19 and in The Parts of Animals I. However, this
is not the end of the question. Some of this tension can be seen in
the biomedical writers in the Hippocratic era. However, it is also
true that in the construction of scientific theories there must, of
necessity, be a tension between those who embrace theoretical
structures and those who are skeptical of them. The latter group
generally bases their misgivings upon a possible tendency among
theorists to create an a priori science. What makes a priori science
troublesome is that it breaks contact with the empirical world. It
suggests that ratiocination about natural causes is sufficient for the
production of scientific theories. For most natural philosophers such
a stance is entirely unacceptable. Setting the proper balance between
theory and observation was (and continues to me) an important question
in the philosophy of science.
One group that added to the debate on the role of observation were the
Empiricists. The origins of the Empiricist School might be found in
Acron of Akragas, a fifth century BCE follower of Empedocles. This
conjecture is based merely upon the testimony of later writers. It
could certainly be the case that there was no real medical empiricism,
as such, before Serapion, a third century BCE doctor .
Another interesting speculation on the origins of the empiricist
physicians comes from Michael Frede. Frede has suggested that from a
reference in Plato's Laws 720a-c; 857c-d that there was a two-tired
medical system with physicians for the wealthy (who employed
theoretical principles) and physicians for the slaves (who relied
merely upon trial-and-error experience). If this speculation is
correct, then the burden of proof for the empiricists is to show that
the theoretical "book learning" of upper class doctors could be
reduced to mere experience. In other words, experience, itself, could
generate competence. The result would be an elevation of the
second-level physician. If Frede is correct on this, then perhaps
social situation is partially responsible for the rise of the medical
empiricists.
Sextus Empiricus (circa 160-210) set out a loosely woven doctrine of
"consideration" or skepsis. Sextus is a key source of our knowledge of
Pyrrhonism and is also said to have been a physician (though his
writings on medicine have not survived). It is not clear whether
Sextus was an original thinker or merely a reflection of his era.
However, at the very least, one can garner background information of
what might have influenced the empiricists through the doctrine of
skepsis. Under this doctrine the theoretical structures of the
philosophers (Dogmatists) would be held in abeyance (neither accepted
nor rejected). What would rule the day would be the case before the
physician right now. The case and the physician's experience would
dictate the treatment.
Against the Empiricists, on the other hand, were the philosophers
(Dogmatists). In one important way the Dogmatists are not a "school"
as such. They are often depicted by their detractors, such as the
Empiricists, rather than being self-identifying. This may relate to
the social class dynamics noted earlier. Thus, one should keep in mind
that the group is not so much a school of practitioners but a
depiction of a group by objectors to those who profess a foundation in
medical theory. Perhaps the best way to characterize the Dogmatists
would be on the issue of aetiology. The Empiricists attacked the
Dogmatists for asserting that there might be hidden causes of disease,
and that these hidden causes might be grasped via ratiocination. This
was because (under this characterization) the Dogmatists were
advocating reasoning and conjecture over experience. To the
Empiricists, this was akin to creating a priori science.
The Dogmatists (even in this quasi-class depiction) were identified
with one of the four prominent philosophical schools (Platonists,
Aristotelians/Peripatetics, Stoics, and Epicureans). Detractors said
that the Dogmatists honored theory over observation and experience. Of
course, from the point of view of the philosophical schools, rational
theories create a critical structure that aid in the interpretation
and explanation of nature. The sense of explanation here harkens back
to Aristotle, who distinguished knowing the fact (hoti) and the
reasoned fact (dioti, APo II, i). It may not be enough to know that if
I (as a physician) do x, then y will result (anecdotal correlation of
two events). That sort of hoti (or merely event + consequence unit) is
insufficient. The reason for this is that when circumstances alter
slightly, how is the practitioner to know whether this alteration is
significant unless he also has an appreciation of the mechanism that
underlies the process? For example, anecdotal correlation might (in a
non-medical modern example) suggest that every time I wash my car, it
will rain. My personal experience may be almost perfect, but that does
not mean that such a causal connection actually exists. The reluctance
to embrace a non-observable causal mechanism leaves this dilemma to
those who profess an aversion to theory in favor of experience.
Somewhat in the middle of these two schools were the Methodists. Aside
from Soranus there are no surviving texts of the Methodists. Therefore
most of what we have comes from the descriptions of Galen and
pseudo-Galen on these writers. The following are cited as being
Methodists: Thessalos, Themison, Proklos, Reginos, Antipatros,
Eudemos, Mnaseas, Philon, Dionysios, Menemachos, Olympikos,
Apollonides, Soranus, Julianus (Kühn X, 52-53, XIV, 684). There is
some controversy about the characterization and origins of this school
but many relate it to Themison of Laodicea a pupil of Asclepiades of
Bithynia. However this attribution is disputed by Celsus and Soranus
who state that Themison is not the first but merely a representative
of Methodism. At any rate, the Methodists paid attention (in contrast
to the Dogmatists and Empiricists) to the disease alone as opposed to
the situation of the individual patient, that is, his medical history
and personal situation. The disease alone dictates treatment (Kühn
III, 14-20). Thus, the physician does not have to have anatomical or
physiological knowledge of the body. Instead, he observes the body in
a holistic manner (koinotetes). The three principle conditions of a
body viewed in this way are: (a) the body's dryness, (b) the body's
fluidity, and (c) the mixture of the two. The "method" to be followed
was to follow the phenomena. Underlying this assumption was the notion
about the status of pores in the mechanism of the body's common
balance. The body's pores allowed atoms to enter and exit the body.
When the atoms came and went freely health was the result. When there
was a disruption, then sickness was the result. When the pores were
either too small (constriction) or too large (dilatation) then an
imbalance occurred in the normal atomic flow. Atoms are invisible to
the naked eye. Pores are visible, but their subtle alterations are
often not visibly detectable. Thus, on the face of it, the Methodists
seem to be contra-Empiricist. However, the atomist tradition (upon
which this theory rests) was taken to be Empiricist. (In principle,
one could view an entirely physical event-if it were possible to
witness it.) Thus, the Methodists seem to have affinities to both.
This is evident in Themison (first century, BCE) and Thessalus (first
century, AD). Disease was depicted as a community of constriction or
dilatation (or some combination of the two) that, in principle, was
observable even though, in practice, it couldn't be observed except
through its effects, namely, the disease. Thus, though the intent of
the Methodists was probably to lean toward the Empiricists, the actual
practice put them more in-between.
Galen often characterizes himself as an eclectic belonging to no
school. It is true that Galen was an innovator in observation, for
example he gave the first depiction of the four-chambered human heart.
But his epistemology was grounded in his philosophical training. Over
and over Galen relies on an over-arching medical theory to drive his
aetiology (Kühn X, 123, 159, 246). In this way his practice is closest
to Aristotelian critical empiricism that requires careful observation
and a comprehensive theory that will make those observations
meaningful.
3. Method
Because of Galen's pluralistic method, it is appropriate that (for the
most part) his own method draws upon his predecessors with additions
and corrections. For example, Galen employed the four-element theory
(earth, air, fire, and water) as well as the theories of the
contraries (hot, cold, wet, and dry). Though Aristotle interrelated
these two descriptive accounts in his work Generation and Corruption,
it is Galen who attempts to create a more gradated form by making
quasi-quantitative categories of the contraries to describe the
material composition of the mixtures (On Mixtures). From the
perspective of modern science, this is an advancement upon Aristotle.
This work on mixtures is also used to account for the properties of
drugs (On Simples). Drugs were supposed to counteract the disposition
of the body. Thus, if a patient were suffering from cold and wet
(upper respiratory infection), then the appropriate drug would be one
that is hot and dry (such as certain molds and fungi-does this remind
you of penicillin?). The use of broad-reaching natural principles
enhanced the explanatory power of Galen's theory of biological
science.
Galen speaks at length about the philosophers Plato (from whom he
accepts the tri-partite soul) and Aristotle (whose biological works
are well known to him). In medicine, he is also greatly influenced by
historical figures such as Hippocrates (who he describes as a single
individual opposed to our modern understanding of a group of
writers-even though Galen was aware of the Hippocratic Question),
Herophilus, and especially Erasistratus. In his avowed work on
biological theory, On the Natural Faculties, Galen goes to great
lengths to refute the principles of Erasistratus and his followers.
Contemporary figures are also discussed such as Aclepiades, and the
Methodists Themison and Thessalus. This thorough use of the context of
medicine allows Galen to consider, for example, Eristrates' theory of
mechanical digestion via a vacuum principle and to supplant it with
his own theory of attraction (holke). Galen's theory of attraction may
have had its roots in the theory of natural place that always lacked a
material force to implement it. At any rate, when the mechanisms are
inscrutable, it was important for Galen to offer an account that fits
into other parts of his theory (such as the mixture of the contraries
in the composition of the elements).
One of the most influential aspects of Galenic practice was his
implementation of (or invention of-as per Wesley Smith) the
Hippocratic theory of the four humours (phlegm, blood, black bile, and
yellow bile). These points of focus relate to a theory of health as
balance. Each of these four humours is related to the three principal
points of the body: head (phlegm), heart (blood), black bile (liver)
and yellow bile (the liver's complement, the gall bladder). The three
principal points of the body are also loosely linked to the Platonic
tripartite soul: head (sophia, reason), heart (thumos, emotion or
spiritedness), liver (epithumos, desire). Thus, the sort of just
balance of the soul that Plato argues for in the Republic is also the
ground of natural health. When one part of the soul/body is out of
balance, then the individual becomes ill. The physician's job is to
assist the patient in maintaining balance. If a person is too full of
uncontrollable emotion or spiritedness, for example, then he is
suffering from too much blood. The obvious answer is to engage in
bloodletting (guaranteed to calm a person down). As in the case of
pharmacology and the contraries, the four humours provide a
comprehensive account of what it means to obtain and maintain health
via the balancing of various primary principles.
4. Galen's Critical Empiricism
One of the striking features of ancient medicine is the extent that
very limited observations had to be interpreted in order to explain
natural function. For example, given that blood was considered to be
nourishment, trophe, it seemed reasonable (following Aristotle) that
the blood would be entirely consumed by the body's tissue. Thus, the
blood would be manufactured in the liver and heart and then would flow
to the rest of the body and be consumed. The flow of blood went
one-way. However, there was a problem: there were two sorts of blood
vessels (veins and arteries). These were structurally distinct. This
was known through dissection of primates. Then it is assumed that
Nature does nothing in vain (discussed at length in On the Use of the
Parts as a key biomedical explanatory principle). This means that the
veins and arteries have different functions. But they cannot be too
disparate. The answer to this dilemma for Galen is that the arteries
carry blood mixed with aer or pneuma that acts as a vital force
whereas the venous blood is ordinary-though Galen held (correctly)
that the two systems were connected by tiny almost invisible vessels
(capillaries).
Thus Galen began with a problem and a number of observations and
sought to make sense of the seeming anomalies via his overarching
biomedical principles. In this way, Galen was acting according to the
mathematical training from his father and a desire to create a unified
(quasi-axiomatic) explanatory system. Without observation, this could
have led to a priori or "armchair" science. But when combined with
careful observation, it leads to critical empiricism.
Another example of this mixture of observation and inference is in the
area of conception theory. Galen says in his treatise, On Seed,
These things have been said by me because of some of the
philosophers who call themselves Aristotelians and Peripatetics. I, at
least, would not address these men so, they being so greatly ignorant
of the opinion of Aristotle that they think it is pleasing to him that
the sperm of the male being cast into the uterus of the female places
the principle of motion in the katamenia (the female seed) and, after
this is expelled, the principle of motion in the katamenia and, after
it is expelled, does not any part become the corporeal substance of
the fetus. They have been deceived by the first book of the Generation
of Animals that alone of the five they seem to have read. These things
are written there, "As we said, of the generation of the principles we
may say that chiefly there are the male principle and the female
principle. The male offers the motive principle and the efficient
cause of generation while the female offers the material principle"
[Galen quoting Aristotle, G.A. 716a 5].
These are not far after the beginning: in still later parts of the
tract he writes as well, "But this may be well concluded that the male
provides the form and the principle of motion and the female provides
the body and the matter just as the example of curding milk. Here the
body is the milk and the fig juice contains the principle that makes
it curdle" [Galen quoting Aristotle, G.A. 729a 10; Kühn IV, 516-517,
my tr.].
The biological accounts of human reproduction in the ancient world
offer excellent examples of the interaction between observation and
inference. There are a number of issues involved in this issue that
pre-dates even the Hippocratic writers. The one that is mentioned here
is the issue of whether there is one seed (the male's only) or two
(the male's and the female's). In the above example Galen seems to be
saying that the first reading of Aristotle in which the male provides
the efficient cause and the female provides the material cause,
simpliciter, is a misreading of Aristotle. Instead, the event
(conception) is depicted as a more involved process in which
principles of both parents come into play. These principles revolve
around the empirically observable facts that children as often as not
resemble the mother as much as the father. The "one seed" theory in
which the father's seed, alone, fashions the child can only account
for such an outcome by calling it a sort of mutation (agone, para
physin). But regularity counts for something. It is odd when an event
that may approach or exceed 50% is called a mutation. This turns the
entire idea of mutation (a statistical anomaly) on its head.
Galen approaches the issue with a balanced approach beginning with
anatomical observations. Galen did some of the most extensive work in
the ancient world on the study of the female anatomy (albeit mostly
upon apes, On Anatomical Procedures, I.2). Galen's observation of a
fluid in the horns of the uterus (Kühn IV, 594, 600-601) were the
basis of his (mistaken) view that he had discovered female seed.
However, in the midst of this mistake he was on the right track in
viewing the ovaries as analogous to the male testes.
The point in this second example is that Galen wanted to combine his
observations gained in dissections of apes to his pronouncements
vis-à-vis the debate concerning "one seed conception" vs. "two seed
conception." This commitment to integrating observation and theory
contributed to making Galen a towering figure in medicine and the
philosophy of science.
5. Select Bibliography
Primary Texts
* Galeni Opera Omnia. Basel: Par'Andrea to Kratandro, 1538.Kühn,
C.G. Galeni Opera Omnia. Leipzig: C. Cnobloch, 1821-1833, rpt.
Hildesheim, 1965.
o This is still the standard edition though it is very
gradually being supplanted by the Corpus Medicorum Graecorum Leipzig,
1914-present.
Key Texts in Translation
* Abhandlung darüber, dass der vorzügliche Arzt Philosoph sein
muss. [Quod optimus medicus sit idem philosophus] translated by Peter
Bachmann. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996.L'Áme et ses
passions: Les passions et les erreurs de l'áme. Translated and notes
by Vincent Barras. Paris: Les Belle Lettres, 1995.
* Galen on Antecedent Causes. Edited and translated with
introduction and commentary by R.J. Hankinson. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1998.
* Galen on Bloodletting. Translated by Peter Brain. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1986.
* Galen on Food and Diet. Translated and notes by Mark Grant.
London: Routledge, 2000.
* Galen's Institutio logica. Translated with commentary by John
Spangler Kieffer. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1964.
* Galen on Language and Ambiguity (De captionibus). Translated
with commentary by Robert Blair Edlow. Leiden: Brill, 1977.
* Galen on the Natural Faculties. Translated by Arthur John Brock.
London: Heineiman, Ltd., 1952. Loeb series.
* Galen on the Usefulness of the Parts of the Body {De usu
partium). Translated with commentary by Margaret Tallmadge May.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1968.
* Galen, The Therapeutic Method: Books 1 & 2 (De methodo medendi).
Edited and translated by R.J. Hankinson. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1991.
Selected Secondary Sources
* Barnes, Jonathan. "A Third Sort of Syllogism: Galen and the
Logic of Relations" in Modern Thinkers and Ancient Thinkers. R. W.
Sharples, ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1993.Boylan, Michael.
"Galen's Conception Theory" Journal of the History of Biology 19.1
(1986): 44-77.
* Boylan, Michael. "The Hippocratic and Galenic Challenges to
Aristotle's Conception Theory" Journal of the History of Biology 15.1
(1984): 83-112.
* Connell, Sophia. "Aristotle and Galen on Sex Difference and
Reproduction: A New Approach to an Ancient Rivalry." Studies in
History and the Philosophy of Science. 31-a.3(2000):405-427.
* Cosans, Christopher E. "The Experimental Foundations of Galen's
Teleology" Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. 29A.1 (1998):
63-90.
* Crombie, A. C. Augustine to Galileo. Vol. 1. London: Heinemann, 1961.
* DeLacy, Philip. "Galen's Platonism" American Journal of
Philology. 93 (1972): 27-39.
* Farrington, B. Greek Science: Theophrastus to Galen. Baltimore,
MD: Penguin, 1953.
* Edelstein, Ludwig. Ancient Medicine. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1967.
* Frede, Michael. "The Empiricist Attitude toward Reason and
Theory" Apeiron. 21 (1988): 79-97.
* Freudiger, Jurg. "Methodus resolutiva: Antikes und Neuzeitliches
in Jacopo Acontios Methodenschrift" Freiburger Zeitschrift für
Philosophie und Theologie. 45.3 (1998): 407-446.
* Gill, Christopher. "Galen vs. Chrysippus on the Tripartite
Psyche in 'Timaeus' 69-72″ in Interpreting the 'Timaeus-Critias. Tomas
Calvo ed. Sankt Augustin: Academia: 1997.
* Gill, Christopher. "Did Chrysippus Understand Medea?" Phronesis.
28.2 (1983): 136-149.
* Hankinson, R. J. "Actions and Passions" in Passions and
Perceptions. Martha Nussbaum, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1993.
* Hankinson, R. J. "Galen's Anatomy of the Soul" Phronesis 36.3
(1991): 197-233.
* Hankinson, R. J. "A Purely Verbal Dispute? Galen on Stoic and
Academic Epistemology" Revue Internationale de Philosophie. 45.178
(1991): 267-300.
* Hankinson, R. J. "Evidence, Externality and Antecendence:
Inquiries Into Later Greek Causal Concepts." Phronesis 32.1 (1987):
80-100.
* Hankinson, R. J. "Causes and Empiricism: A Problem in the
Interpretation of Later Greek Medical Method." Phronesis 32.4 (1987):
329-348.
* Kagan, Jerome, Nancy Snidman, Doreen Ardus, J. Steven Rezinck.
Galen's Prophecy: Temperament in Human Nature. NY: Basic Books, 1994.
* Kember, O. "Right and Left in the Sexual Theories of Parmenides"
Journal of Hellenic Studies. 91 (1971): 70-79.
* Kidd, I. G. "Posidonius on Emotions" in Problems in Stoicism. A.
A. Long, ed. London: Athlone, 1971.
* Kudlian, Fridolf and Richard J. Durling. Galen's Method of
Healing. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991.
* Lloyd, G.E.R. Methods and Problems in Greek Science. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1991.
* Lloyd, G.E.R. Greek Science After Aristotle. New York: Norton, 1973.
* Lloyd, G.E.R. "Parmenides' Sexual Theories: A Reply to MER
Kember" Journal of Hellenic Studies. 92 (1972): 178-179.
* Lumpe, Adolf. "Der logische Grundgedanke der vierten
Schlussfigur." Prima Philosophia. 11.4 (1998): 397-404.
* Lumpe, Adolf. "Zur Anordnung der Pramissen des kategorischen
Syllogismus bei Albinos, Galenus und Pseudo-Apuleius" Prima
Philosophia 8.2 (1995): 115-124.
* Mansfield, Jaap. "The Idea of the Will in Chrysippus,
Posidonius, and Galen" Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in
Ancient Philosophy 7 (1991): 107-145.
* Manuli, Paola. "Galien et le Stoicisme" Revue de Mataphysique et
de Morale 97.3 (1992): 365-375.
* Mowry, Bryan. "From Galen's Theory to William Harvey's Theory: A
Case Study in the Rationality of Scientific Theory Change" Studies in
History and the Philosophy of Science 16 (1985): 49-82.
* Nutton, Vivian. "The Chronology of Galen's Early Career"
Classical Quarterly 23 (1973): 158-171.
* Nutton, Vivian. (ed.) Galen: Problems and Prospects. London:
Wellcome Institute, 1981.
* Nutton, Vivian. "Galen ad multos annos" Dynamis 15 (1995): 25-39.
* Rescher, Nicholas. Galen and the Syllogism: An Examination of
the Thesis that Galen Originated the Fourth Figure of the Syllogism in
Light of New Data from the Arabic. Pittsburgh, PA: University of
Pittsburgh Press, 1996.
* Sarton, George. Galen of Pergamon. Lawrence, KS: University of
Kansas Press, 1954.
* Siegel, Rudolph. Galen's System of Physiology and Medicine.
Basel: Karger, 1968.
* Smith, Wesley. The Hippocratic Tradition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press, 1979.
* Temkin, Owsei. Galenism: The Rise and Decline of a Medical
Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1973.
* Tieleman, Teun. "Plotinus on the Seat of the Soul:
Reverberations of Galen and Alexander in Enn. IV, 3 27ESS, 23."
Phronesis. 43.4 (1998): 306-325.
No comments:
Post a Comment