Galen was one of the most prominent ancient physicians as 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.
Table of Contents (Clicking on the links below will take you to those parts of this article)
1. Life
Galen of Pergamum was a physician who was born around 129 A.D.
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, viz., 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. 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.
|
