Pseudo-Galen, what is a soul and what is a body?

“29. According to Plato, soul is a self-moving incorporeal substance. According to the Stoics, however, it is a subtle body moving out of itself according to seminal principles, while according to Aristotle, it is the actuality of a natural instrumental body potentially having life. Alternatively, soul is pneuma distributed through the whole body, through which we live and reason and act by means of the other senses, the body being its servant.*

30. Body is magnitude three times extended, having in itself height, depth and breadth.** Or, it is magnitude composed of three dimensions.”

κθʹ. ψυχή ἐστιν οὐσία ἀσώματος, αὐτοκίνητος κατὰ Πλάτωνα. κατὰ δὲ τοὺς Στωϊκοὺς σῶμα λεπτομερὲς ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ κινούμενον κατὰ σπερματικοὺς λόγους. κατὰ δὲ τὸν Ἀριστοτέλη ἐντελέχεια σώματος φυσικοῦ ὀργανικοῦ δυνάμει ζωὴν ἔχοντος. ἄλλως. ψυχή ἐστι πνεῦμα παρεσπαρμένον ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ σώματι δι' οὗ ζῶμεν καὶ λογιζόμεθα καὶ ταῖς λοιπαῖς αἰσθήσεσιν ἐνεργοῦμεν ὑπηρετοῦντος τοῦ σώματος.

λʹ. σῶμά ἐστι μέγεθος τριχῇ διάστατον ἔχον ἐν ἑαυτῷ μῆκος, βάθος, πλάτος. ἢ μέγεθος ἐκ τριῶν διαστημάτων συνεστηκός.

[Galen], Medical Definitions 29 and 30, 19.355–356 K

*cf. Anonymus Londinensis:

“‘Soul’ is said in three ways: that which pervades the whole body, and the rational part, and further the entrecheia (i.e., ἐντελέχεια, probably).”

ψυχὴ δὲ λέγεται τριχῶς·
[ἥ τε] τῶι ὅλωι σώματι παρεσπαρ-
μ̣ένη καὶ τὸ μόριον τὸ λογιστικὸν
[κ]αὶ ἔτι ἡ ἐντρέχεια. * καὶ τῆς μ(ὲν) ἐντρε-
[χ]είας ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος οὐ χρῄζομεν,
[τ]ῶν δὲ ἄλλων δύο σημαινομένων,
[κα]ὶ μᾶλλον το̣ῦ λο̣γιστ̣ικοῦ.

Anonymus Londinensis I,21-24

**Cf. Apollodorus ap. Diogenes Laertius:

“Body is defined by Apollodorus in his Physics as that which is extended in three dimensions, length, breadth, and depth. This is also called solid body.”

σῶμα δ’ ἐστίν, ὥς φησιν Ἀπολλόδωρος ἐν τῇ Φυσικῇ, τὸ τριχῆ διαστατόν, εἰς μῆκος, εἰς πλάτος, εἰς βάθος· τοῦτο δὲ καὶ στερεὸν σῶμα καλεῖται.

Diog. Laert. 7.175

Plato on Providence in Laws X

More on providence: the theodicy from Plato’s Laws. Plato doesn’t say the divine punishes or spites people for failing to be as virtuous as they could be. Instead, he says the cosmic ruler figures out where people with less-than-perfect characters in this life are most likely to succeed in the next one, and makes sure that’s where they end up. Didn’t make it as a good human? No problem—in the next round, maybe you can make it as a good bird or fish. The idea is that the cosmos has been set up so that we’re always given a chance to excel, not just for our own sake, but for the sake of being a part of a process of making everything as good as possible.

“Athenian: This. When the ruler of the cosmos saw that all our actions are ensouled, and that in them there is much virtue and much vice, and that soul and body, once they came into existence, were indestructible—for, had either of them been destroyed, there would never have been a generation of animals—, but they were not eternal like the customary gods, and when he saw by how much the good of the soul is always by nature beneficial, and the evil harmful—when he saw all these things, he determined where, if placed, each individual would make virtue victorious and vice defeated in the universe. And he made it so that, depending on what we are like, we must make our home always in a certain abode and ever in certain places. The causes of becoming the way we are, however, he left to our individual choices. For how we desire and what our soul is like—in just about every case, all of us for the most part come to be the way we are by this.”

ΑΘ. Ὧδε. ἐπειδὴ κατεῖδεν ἡμῶν ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐμψύχους οὔσας τὰς πράξεις ἁπάσας καὶ πολλὴν μὲν ἀρετὴν ἐν αὐταῖς οὖσαν, πολλὴν δὲ κακίαν, ἀνώλεθρον δὲ ὂν γενόμενον, ἀλλ' οὐκ αἰώνιον, ψυχὴν καὶ σῶμα, καθάπερ οἱ κατὰ νόμον ὄντες θεοί – γένεσις γὰρ οὐκ ἄν ποτε ἦν ζῴων ἀπολομένου τούτοιν θατέρου – καὶ τὸ μὲν ὠφελεῖν ἀεὶ πεφυκός, ὅσον ἀγαθὸν ψυχῆς, διενοήθη, τὸ δὲ κακὸν βλάπτειν· ταῦτα πάντα συνιδών, ἐμηχανήσατο ποῦ κείμενον ἕκαστον τῶν μερῶν νικῶσαν ἀρετήν, ἡττωμένην δὲ κακίαν, ἐν τῷ παντὶ παρέχοι μάλιστ' ἂν καὶ ῥᾷστα καὶ ἄριστα. μεμηχάνηται δὴ πρὸς πᾶν τοῦτο τὸ ποῖόν τι γιγνόμενον ἀεὶ ποίαν ἕδραν δεῖ μεταλαμβάνον οἰκίζεσθαι καὶ τίνας ποτὲ τόπους· τῆς δὲ γενέσεως τοῦ ποίου τινὸς ἀφῆκε ταῖς βουλήσεσιν ἑκάστων ἡμῶν τὰς αἰτίας. ὅπῃ γὰρ ἂν ἐπιθυμῇ καὶ ὁποῖός τις ὢν τὴν ψυχήν, ταύτῃ σχεδὸν ἑκάστοτε καὶ τοιοῦτος γίγνεται ἅπας ἡμῶν ὡς τὸ πολύ.

Plato, Laws 904A6–C4

Reading with Galen: when good authors say false things

Another one Maria pointed out to me.

Idola theatri

“Whenever an obviously false statement is found in the writings of an intelligent author, it’s normal for their students to become puzzled. At first, they doubt themselves and do not trust that they understand what is obvious; then, after a while, they suspect something of what they are reading is false.”

Ὁπόταν ἐν ἀνδρὸς φρονίμου συγγράμματι λόγος εὑρεθῇ προφανῶς ψευδής, εἰκότως ἀπορεῖσθαι συμβαίνει τοὺς ἀναγινώσκοντας αὐτόν, καὶ πρῶτον μὲν ἑαυτοῖς ἀπιστεῖν, ὡς μηδὲ τὰ φανερά γινώσκουσι, εἶθ᾿ ἑξῆς ὑποπτεύειν, μή τι τῶν ὑποκειμένων ψευδὲς εἴη.

Galen, Commentary on Hippocrates’ Aphorisms 6.34, 18A.55 Kühn

The aphorism in question…

“Bald people do not get large varicose veins; bald people who do get varicose veins grow their hair back again.”

Ὁκόσοι φαλακροὶ, τουτέοισι κιρσοὶ μεγάλοι οὐ γίνονται· ὁκόσοισι δὲ φαλακροῖσιν ἐοῦσιν κιρσοὶ γίνονται, πάλιν οὗτοι γίνονται δασέες.

Aphorisms 6.34, 4.570 Littré

Before we begin: Aetius of Amida’s Medical Books

Continuing the introductions of the major medical compilations, this time Aetius of Amida’s Medical Books (Libri Medicinales).

Other People’s Introductions

If Aetius wrote an introduction to his work, it no longer exists. Instead, we get notes scribbled in manuscripts, some with summaries of the whole work, some just the first two books. One day, I might get around to posting translations of the more complete ones. For now, here’s an example of a shorter one from the title page of Codex Parisinus suppl. gr. 1240, fol. 5r:

“Aetius Amidenus’ (Comes Obsiquii) Book of 16 Medical Discussions

He has summarized from the three books of Oribasius, which he wrote to Julian, to Eustathius, and to Eunapius, and from the therapeutic [works] of Galen, Archigenes, Ruphos; furthermore, of Disocorides, Herodotos, Soranos, Philagrios, Philonos, Philoumenos, Posidonios, and some other notable ancient physicians.”

ΑΕΤΙΟΥ ΑΜΙΔΗΝΟΥ ΚΟΜΗΤΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΟΨΙΚΙΟΥ ΛΟΓΩΝ ΙΑΤΡΙΚΩΝ ις ΒΙΒΛΙΟΝ

συνοπισθὲν ἐκ τῶν τριῶν βιβλίων Ὀριβασίου ὧν ἔγραψε πρὸς Ἰουλιανὸν καὶ πρὸς Εὐστάθιον καὶ πρὸς Εὐνάπιον ἔκ τε τῶν θεραπευτικῶν Γαληνοῦ καὶ Ἀρχιγένους καὶ Ῥουφου, ἔτι δὲ καὶ Διοσκορίδου καὶ Ἡροδότου καὶ Σωρανοῦ Φιλαγρίου τε καὶ Φίλωνος καὶ Φιλουμένου καὶ Ποσειδονίου καὶ ἑτέρων τινῶν ἀρχαίων ἰατρῶν ἐπισήμων.

Cod. Par. suppl. gr. 1240, fol. 5r

Sometimes, individual books get an introduction as well. Here’s an example from Parisinus gr. 2193, fol. 1r, its crimson ink here rendered reproduction-grey:

“Aetius’ first book contains material from Galen’s introductory remarks about the four orders of each kind of simple drug, and how, from their taste, smell and color, to infer the power of each of the simples.”

Τάδε ἔνεστιν ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ λόγῳ Ἀετίου ἐκ τῶν Γαληνοῡ προοιμίων περὶ τῶν τεσσάρων τάξεων ἑκάστου γένους τῶν ἁπλῶν φαρμάκων καὶ ὅπως χρὴ ἔκ τε γεύσεως καὶ τῆς ὀσμῆς καὶ τῆς χροιᾶς τεκμαίρεσθαι τὴν ἑκαστου τῶν ἁπλῶν δύναμιν.

Cod. Par. gr. 2193, fol. 1r

Copy-Paste

We do have something of an introduction to the first and second of the sixteen Medical Books, although it is a bit abrupt. The first two books form a unit on pharmacology: they present excerpts of what Galen (and a few others) wrote about simple drugs of vegetable, mineral and animal origin. It is like a big list of ingredients for use in recipes, one which describes the medicinal properties of each plant, animal or stone, so that you know which to mix together for different ailments.

Galen’s and Aetius’ pharmacology have very different aims. For Galen, the study of simple drugs was about discovery: how to discover and prove the presence of different medicinal properties in different things. Aetius’ aims are practical. Taking Galen’s investigations for granted, he simply states the properties of drugs Galen has already proved. Galen did research. Aetius applies it.

In his introduction, Aetius does something new, as well, taking what Galen has written about how to use taste, smell and sight to discover the properties of plants, and producing a kind of cut-and-paste rearrangement. His goal seems to have been to teach people how to judge the quality of different herbs. Whereas Galen’s procedure was something like,

“if pennywort in general tastes like this, then pennywort has this medicinal property.”

Aetius’ is more like,

“if this particular basil or pennywort is any good, then it will taste like this.”

Galen’s procedure is pretty important if you are trying to set up a science of pharmacology. Aetius’ procedure is important if you want to know whether the cinnamon the huckster is selling you is any good.

His introduction begins like this:

“The differences of the individual activities in each drug result from the extent to which each is hot or cold, dry or wet, and made of fine or coarse parts. The extent that they reach in each of the categories mentioned is not able to be put into words, at least in terms of the most precise truth of the matter; but, we have tried to demarcate [the extent] with boundaries that are sufficiently clear for the art’s practical use [...]”

αἱ διαφοραὶ τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἐνεργειῶν ἐν ἑκάστῳ τῶν φαρμάκων γίγνονται τῷ ἐπὶ τοσόνδε θερμὸν ἢ ψυχρὸν ἢ ξηρὸν ἢ ὑγρὸν ἢ λεπτομερὲς ἢ παχυμερὲς ὑπάρχειν ἕκαστον αὐτῶν. τὸ δὲ ἐπὶ τοσόνδε προήκειν ἐν ἑκάστῳ τῶν εἰρημένων ἄρρητόν ἐστιν πρός γε τὴν ἀκριβεστάτην ἀλήθειαν. ἀλλ’ ἡμεῖς καὶ αὐτὸ περιλαβεῖν ἐπειράθημεν ὅροις σαφέσιν ἱκανοῖς εἰς τὴν χρείαν τῆς τέχνης [...]

Aetius Amidenus, Libri Medicinales, book I, proem, 17,2–7 Olivieri

Which is originally taken from the seventh book of Galen’s work On The Powers of Simple Drugs:

“What will be discussed in this and the books that remain after it are the primary powers of plants, since the order of instruction we are presenting here follows the alphabetical order with which we started. In the previous book, therefore, we got as far as the letter I; in this one, we will make a start with the letter K to the extent we mentioned before, that we will refer everything back to the principles which we demonstrated previously. For from the extent to which each drug is hot or cold, wet or dry, and made of fine or coarse parts, the differences of the particular activities result; and the extent that they reach in each of the previously mentioned categories is not able to be put into words, at least in terms of the most precise truth of the matter; but, we have tried to demarcate [the extent] with boundaries that are sufficiently clear for the art’s practical use [...]”

εἰρήσονται δ' ἐν τούτῳ τῷ βιβλίῳ καὶ τῷ μετ' αὐτὸ τῶν ὑπολοίπων φυτῶν αἱ πρῶται δυνάμεις, τὴν τάξιν τῆς διδασκαλίας κᾀνταῦθα κατὰ τὴν τάξιν τῶν γραμμάτων ποιησαμένων ἡμῶν, ἀφ' ὧν ἄρχονται. ἐν μὲν οὖν τῷ πρὸ τοῦδε μέχρι τοῦ ι προήλθομεν· ἐνταυθοῖ δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ κ ποιησόμεθα τοσοῦτον ἔτι προαναμνήσαντες, ὡς εἰς τὰς προαποδεδειγμένας ἀρχὰς ἀνάξομεν ἅπαντα· τῷ γὰρ ἐπὶ τοσόνδε θερμὸν ἢ ψυχρὸν, ἢ ὑγρὸν ἢ ξηρὸν, ἢ λεπτομερὲς ἢ παχυμερὲς ὑπάρχειν ἕκαστον τῶν φαρμάκων αἱ διαφοραὶ τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἐνεργειῶν αὐτῶν γίγνονται, τὸ δ' ἐπὶ τοσόνδε προήκειν ἐν ἑκάστῳ τῶν προειρημένων ἄῤῥητόν ἐστι πρός γε τὴν ἀκριβεστάτην ἀλήθειαν. ἀλλ' ἡμεῖς καὶ τοῦτο περιλαβεῖν ἐπειράθημεν ὅροις σαφέσιν, ἱκανοῖς εἰς τὴν χρείαν τῆς τέχνης [...]

Galen, De simplicium medicamentorum temperamentis et facultatibus, book 7, proem, 12.2 Kühn

In Your Own Words

There is, however, one sentence in the introduction that has no parallel. It comes towards the end and might be Aetius’ own words:

“I will give a summary under separate headings of all these [capacities and activities], and likewise of several others that are especially useful, after I have finished going over, as much as possible, the general capacities and activities species by species.”

τούτων δὲ ἁπάντων ὥσπερ καὶ ἑτέρων τινῶν χρησιμωτάτων ἐν κεφαλαίῳ τὴν σύνοψιν ποιήσομαι, μετὰ τὸ διελθεῖν με κατ’ εἶδος ὡς οἷόν τε τὰς καθόλου δυνάμεις τε ἑκάστου καὶ ἐνεργείας.

Aetius Amidenus, Libri Medicinales, book I, proem, 29,28–30 Olivieri

A Prayer to Isis

Meditation for a friend who saw something else in me, who died last week.

---

“Oh holy and eternal comfort of humankind, who ever nurtures mortals with your generosity, you apply a mother’s sweet affection to the misfortunes of the wretched. Not a day or night or even a little moment goes by indifferent to your blessing.

“You protect men on land and sea. Driving away life’s storms, you reach out with your saving hand and you unwind the threads of the Fates, even those that are inextricably twisted. You calm the tempests of Fortune and you restrain the hurtful course of the stars.

“The spirits above honour you, the ones below worship you. You turn the sphere of heaven, you give light to the sun, you govern the universe, and you keep Tartarus at bay. To you, the heavenly bodies reply, the seasons return, the divine power gives praise, and the elements give their devotion.

“At your command, the winds give breath, the clouds nourish, the seeds of the earth sprout forth, and their seedlings grow. At your greatness tremble the birds moving in the sky, the beasts wandering the hills, the serpents hiding in the den, and the monsters that swim in the deep.

“My nature, however, is too feeble to speak your praises, my inheritance too meager to offer you sacrifices. My voice does not have the power to say what I feel about your greatness—nor would a thousand mouths and as many tongues, or even an eternal flow of indefatigable speech.

“I will, therefore, take care to do the only thing a pious but poor person can do: I will hold your divine expression and your most holy will in the secret places of my heart, forever keeping them and remembering.”

‘Tu quidem, sancta et humani generis sospitatrix perpetua, semper fouendis mortalibus munifica, dulcem matris affectionem miserorum casibus tribuis. Nec dies nec quies ulla ac ne momentum quidem tenue tuis transcrrit beneficiis otiosum, quin mari terraque protegas homines et depulsis uitae procellis salutarem porrigas dexteram, qua fatorum etiam inextricabiliter contorta retractas licia, et Fortunae tempestates mitigas, et stellarum noxios meatus cohibes. Te superi colunt, obseruant inferi. Tu rotas orbem, luminas solem, regis mundum, calcas Tartarum. Tibi respondent sidera, redeunt tempora, gaudent numina, seruiunt elementa. Tuo nutu spirant flamina, nutriunt nubila, germinant semina, crescunt germina. Tuam maiestatem perhorrescunt aues caelo meantes, ferae montibus errantes, serpentes solo latentes, beluae ponto natantes. At ego referendis laudibus tuis exilis ingenio et adhibendis sacrificiis tenuis patrimonio; nec mihi uocis ubertas ad dicenda quae de ta maiestate sentio sufficit, nec ora mille linguaeque totidem uel indefessi sermonis aeterna series. Ergo quod solum potest, religiosus quidem sed pauper alioquin, efficere curabo: diuinos tuos uultus numenque sanctissimum intra pectoris mei secreta conditum perpetuo custodiens imaginabor.’

Apuleius, Metamorphoses XI 25

Forever Young

A while ago, I posted a bit of the Pseudo-Lucian’s Long Lives (Macrobii), a funny little book telling the stories of famous people who lived a long life through diet and exercise. Like this one:

“Ariathes, the king of Kappadokia, lived 82 years according to Hieronymos. Maybe he would have lived longer if he hadn’t been captured and crucified during the war against Perdikkas.”

Ἀριαράθης δὲ ὁ Καππαδοκῶν βασιλεὺς δύο μὲν καὶ ὀγδοήκοντα ἔζησεν ἔτη, ὡς Ἱερώνυμος ἱστορεῖ: ἐδυνήθη δὲ ἴσως καὶ ἐπὶ πλέον διαγενέσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῇ πρὸς Περδίκκαν μάχῃ ζωγρηθεὶς ἀνεσκολοπίσθη.

Pseudo-Lucian, Macrobii 13

There seems to have been a whole genre on this topic in antiquity and even into the Renaissance — my sister tells me Ficino’s De vita is essentially advice about how scholars can live a long life …

Here’s another example of the genre, this time from Galen’s On Wasting Away (De marcore):

---

Actually, a contemporary philosopher wrote a book showing how it is possible for someone to stay young forever. He published the book when he was forty, but he lived until he was eighty, at which point he was so withered and dry that he himself fit the description in the Hippocratic Prognostics:

“…nose sharp, eyes hollow, temples collapsed, ears cold and drawn in and the ear lobes curled up, and the area around the forehead dry and stretched and wrinkled.” (Hipp. Prog. 2.5, 2.115 Littré)

He was laughed at for trying to teach other people how to stay young when he looked the way he did. And so he put out a second edition of On the Marvellous Eternal Youth (for that’s also what he called it throughout the book), in which he showed that it wasn’t possible for every person to stay forever young, but that one needs to have the right nature and to be given a solid foundation from their earliest upbringing. And he proclaimed that if he were in charge of raising children with a suitable nature right from the start, he would make their bodies immortal.

Now, his claim couldn’t be tested, since he would be dead before the kids he was taking care of grew up. And so everyone else thought he was extremely foolish, but not me, since I alone recognized that many reasonable men, tricked by the plausibility of the arguments, hold many other opinions that are inconsistent with what is known through experience.

There is, then, nothing that marvellous about this argument. For the claim that everything born will be thoroughly corrupted is neither a scientific nor a necessary conclusion, but only goes as far as being probable, as I have shown in On Demonstration, even if just about everyone uses this argument when they point out that it is necessary for living things to age, saying that everything born is on the path to its subsequent and necessary destruction.

καί τοί τις τῶν καθ' ἡμᾶς φιλοσόφων ἔγραψε βιβλίον, ἐπιδεικνὺς ὅπως ἔνεστιν ἀγήρων τινὰ διαμεῖναι τὸ πάμπαν. ἐξέδωκε μὲν οὖν τὸ βιβλίον ἔτι τεσσαρακοντούτης ὢν, παρέτεινε δὲ μέχρι καὶ τῶν ὀγδοήκοντα ἐτῶν, καὶ ἦν οὕτως ἰσχνός τε καὶ ξηρὸς, ὡς ἁρμόζειν ἐπ' αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐκ τοῦ προγνωστικοῦ Ἱπποκράτειον ῥῆσιν, ῥὶς ὀξεῖα, ὀφθαλμοὶ κοῖλοι, κρόταφοι ξυμπεπτωκότες, ὦτα ψυχρὰ, καὶ συνεσταλμένα, καὶ οἱ λοβοὶ τῶν ὤτων ἀπεστραμμένοι, καὶ τὸ περὶ τὸ μέτωπον ξηρόν τε καὶ περιτεταμένον, καὶ καρφαλέον ἐόν. ἐπεὶ τοίνυν ἐγελᾶτο τοιοῦτος φαινόμενος, ὅτι ἄλλους ἀνθρώπους ἐπεχείρησε διδάσκειν, ὅπως ἄν τις ἀγήρως διαμείνῃ, δευτέραν ἔκδοσιν ἐποιήσατο περὶ τῆς θαυμαστῆς ἀγηρασίας, οὕτω γὰρ αὐτὴν καὶ ὠνόμασε διὰ τοῦ συγγράμματος, ἐπιδεικνὺς, ὡς οὐ πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ἀγήρως δύναται διαμένειν, ἀλλὰ δέοι μὲν εἰς τοῦτο καὶ φύσιν ἔχειν ἐπιτηδείαν, μάλιστα δ' ὧν ἡ πρώτη τροφὴ τοιαῦτα βάλλοιτο θεμέλια, καὶ ἐπηγγείλατο τῶν ἐπιτηδείων εἰς τοῦτο βρεφῶν εὐθὺς ἐξ ἀρχῆς αὐτὸς ἐπιστατῶν, ἀθάνατα αὐτῶν ποιήσειν τὰ σώματα. καὶ ἦν ἀνεξέλεγκτον αὐτοῦ τὸ ἐπάγγελμα· πρὸ τοῦ γὰρ ἀνδρωθῆναι τοὺς παῖδας, οὓς παρελάμβανεν, ἔμελλεν αὐτὸς τεθνήξεσθαι. οἱ μὲν οὖν ἄλλοι πάντες ἐσχάτην μωρίαν αὐτοῦ κατεγίνωσκον, ἐγὼ δὲ οὒ, [μόνον] εἰδὼς, ὅτι πολλὰ καὶ ἄλλα δόγματα τοῖς διὰ τῆς ἐμπειρίας ἐγνωσμένοις μαχόμενα πολλοὶ τῶν λογικῶν ἀνδρῶν ἀπεφήναντο τῇ πιθανότητι τῶν λόγων ἐξαπατηθέντες. οὐκ οὖν οὐδὲ τοῦτο θαυμαστόν ἐστιν ὅσον ἐπὶ τῷ λόγῳ. τὸ γὰρ ὅτι τὸ γεννητὸν πᾶν φθαρήσεται πάντως οὔτ' ἐπιστημονικὴν οὔτ' ἀναγκαίαν ἔχει τὴν ἀκολουθίαν, ἀλλ' ἄχρι τοῦ πιθανοῦ προϊοῦσαν, ὡς ἐν τῷ περὶ ἀποδείξεως ἀποδέδεικται, καίτοι γε τούτῳ χρῶνται τῷ λόγῳ σχεδὸν ἅπαντες, ὅσοι τὸ γηράσκειν ἀναγκαῖον ἐπιδεικνύουσι τοῖς ζώοις, ὁδὸν εἶναι φάσκοντες αὐτὸ πρὸς τὴν ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἑπομένην φθορὰν τοῖς γεννητοῖς ἅπασιν.

Galen, On Marasmus (De marcore liber | Γαλήνου Περὶ μαρασμοῦ βιβλίον), 7.760–2 Kühn

*On the identity of the contemporary philosopher, Theoharides offers this note in his translation:

Philipp sounds like a cool guy. He’s often named alongside Archigenes and he seems to have written about a state of old age brought about by illness; but, it makes no sense to me to say he’s the philosopher mentioned here.

Galen mentions Philipp all over the place—Theoharides’ note points to six instances in this treatise alone. Why would he refrain from saying his name here? And if Philipp is a doctor, why here would he call him a philosopher? Am I missing something?

The other place this contemporary philosopher shows up is in Galen’s Matters of Health:

“For, it is not possible that what is born be imperishable, even if a contemporary philosopher desperately tried to show this in his incredible treatise, where he teaches the path to immortality.”

ἄφθαρτον μὲν γὰρ ποιῆσαι τὸ γεννητὸν οὐχ οἷόν τε, κἂν ὅτι μάλιστα τῶν καθ’ ημᾶς τις νῦν ἀνὴρ φιλόσοφος ἐπειρᾶτο δεικνύναι τοῦτο διὰ τοῦ θαυμασίου τούτου συγγράμματος, ἐν ᾧ διδάσκει τὴν ὁδὸν τῆς ἀθανασίας.

Galen, De sanitate tuenda 1.12, 6.63 Kühn

He shows up again at the end of Matters of Health, where Galen calls him (probably not as an insult) a sophist:

“So, if it were really possible to preserve a moist mixture of the body forever, then the argument of the sophist—the one who claimed he would make the person who believed him immortal, which I went over at the beginning—would be true. But since, as we’ve shown, it is not possible for the body to avoid nature’s path to being dried out, it is therefore necessary that we grow old and die, while the one who is the least dried out would be the longest lived.”

ὡς, εἴγε δυνατὸν ἦν ἀεὶ διαφυλάττειν ὑγρὰν τὴν κρᾶσιν τοῦ σώματος, ὁ τοῦ σοφιστοῦ λόγος, ὃν ἐν ἀρχῇ διῆλθον, ἀθάνατον ἐπαγγελλομένου ποιήσειν τὸν αὐτῷ πειθόμενον, ἀληθὴς ἦν. ἀλλ’ ἐπεὶ τὴν φυσικὴν ὁδὸν τὴν ἐπὶ τὸ ξηραίνεσθαι τὸ σῶμα φυγεῖν οὐκ ἔστιν, ὡς ἐδείχθη, διὰ τοῦτο γηρᾶν ἀναγκαῖον ἡμῖν ἐστι καὶ φθείρεσθαι, πολυχρονιώτατος δ’ ἂν ὁ ἥκιστα ξηραινόμενος γένοιτο.

Galen, De sanitate tuenda 6.3, 6.399-400 Kühn

I haven’t found anyone who has noticed Galen contradicts himself in the two works. In De marcore he says there’s no necessity that what is born will die—a good position for a Platonist to hold, or at least for anyone who thinks the cosmos is created but imperishable. PN Singer told me he thinks Galen’s position in De sanitate tuenda may be meant to be restricted to non-celestial matters—that Galen is likely talking about death being necessary in the way he attributes to ‘just about everybody’ in De marcore. Still, he’s not explicit about it and I wonder if Galen put much thought into it. I mean, he’s a doctor, right? How much thought do doctor’s today put into arguments for immortality?

---

Conspiracy Theories

After a couple years’ work, Maria Βörno and I are finishing up a paper about the criteria Galen uses to decide when a work should or should not be attributed to Hippocrates. Galen’s work on this, On the Genuine and Spurious Writings of Hippocrates (Περὶ τῶν γνησίων τε καὶ νόθων Ἱπποκράτους συγγραμμάτων), is lost, but Maria is preparing a critical edition of Galen’s commentary on the seventh book of the Aphorisms, which is a great source for examples of how Galen attacks earlier Hippocratic interpreters’ attributions.

Maria found this one, where Galen invents something like a conspiracy theory explaining why the seventh book is full of spurious material (we give Kühn’s text below):

“Still, I think the people who interpolated these aphorisms composed them using these words for the following reason: to make the passage confusing, like an enigma, and need a lot of research, at which point they can position themselves as interpreters of what was said and gain the respect of the youth. Just from looking at this aphorism, it should be obvious to you that all of these unclear passages provide the sophists a pretext for garrulity.”

ἀλλ᾽ οἱ τούτους τοὺς ἀφορισμοὺς παρενθέντες δοκοῦσί μοι χάριν αὐτοῦ τούτοις συνθεῖναι, τοῦ συγκεχύσθαι τε τὸν λόγον, ὥσπερ αἴνιγμα, καὶ δεῖσθαι ζητήσεως πολλῆς, ἐν ᾗ καθιστάντες ἑαυτοὺς ἐξηγητὰς τῶν λεγομένων εὐδοκιμοῦσι παρὰ τοῖς μειρακίοις. ὅτι δὲ οἱ λόγοι πάντες οἱ ἀσαφεῖς ἀφορμὰς πολυλογίας παρέχουσι τοῖς σοφισταῖς δῆλον ἔσται σοι κατ᾽ αὐτὸν τοῦτον τὸν ἀφορισμόν.

Galen, Commentary on Hippocrates’ Aphorisms VII 69 (XVIIIA 184–185 K.)

Nicknames

I

Satyros from Thasos, nicknamed Griffinfox (Γρυπαλώπηξ).* When he was around 25 years old, he started having frequent wet dreams. It happened to him often during the day, as well. Around the time he turned 30, he became consumptive and died.

Σάτυρος ἐν Θάσῳ παρωνύμιον ἐκαλεῖτο Γρυπαλώπηξ* περὶ ἔτεα ἐὼν πέντε καὶ εἴκοσιν, ἐξωνείρωσσε πολλάκις. προῄει δ’ αὐτῷ καὶ δι’ ἡμέρης πλεονάκις· γενόμενος δὲ περὶ ἔτεα τριήκοντα φθινώδης ἐγένετο καὶ ἀπέθανεν.

Hippocrates, Epidemics 6.8.29, 5.354 Littré (nb: I’ve given Smith’s text)

Στρυμάργου: Dioscorides knows this reading, as well—not only Στομάργου [see IV below]. He doesn’t interpret this one as a proper name, either; instead, he says it indicates someone with manic excitement about sex. For many other epithets are also mentioned in Hippocrates in the same way, like Μυοχάνη, Σαράπους, Γρυπαλώπηξ.* But even in Erasistratos, he says, [we find] ῥινοκολοῦρος.

Στρυμάργου: οἶδε καὶ ταύτην τὴν γραφὴν ὁ Διοσκουρίδης, οὐ μόνον τὴν Στομάργου, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦτο οὐχ ὡς κύριον ὄνομα ἐξηγεῖται, ἀλλὰ τὸν μανικῶς ἐπτοημένον, περὶ τὰ ἀφροδίσια δηλοῦσθαί φησιν. εἰρῆσθαι γὰρ παρὰ τῷ Ἱπποκράτει καὶ ἄλλα πολλὰ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ἐπίθετα, καθάπερ Μυοχάνη, Σαράπους, Γρυπαλώπηξ. ἀλλὰ καὶ παρ' Ἐρασιστράτῳ φησὶν ὁ ῥινοκολοῦρος.

Galen, Glossary of Hippocrates’ Terminology, 19.142 K.

*γρυπαλώπηξ: γρύψ (griffin) + ἀλώπηξ (fox). γρύψ enters English as both the griffin and the wyvern, a bipedal dragon.

II

Raw and liquid feces are checked with solid millet cooked in oil—like the sailor-boy and <Myriochaune or the woman with her mouth open or> the joking-woman.

Τὰ ὠμὰ διαχωρήματα καὶ ὑγρὰ κέγχρος στερεὸς ἐν ἐλαίῳ ἑφθὸς ἵστησιν, οἷον τὸ ναυτοπαίδιον, καὶ ἡ Μυριοχαύνη.

Hippocrates, Epidemics 2.1.12, 5.82 Littré (Smith’s text)

Μηριοχάνη: a woman's name.

†Μηριοχάνη· ὄνομα γυναικός.

Erotian, Collection of Words used by Hippocrates, μ 2 (59,8 Nachmanson)

Μυοχάνη: epithet of a woman with her mouth open. But if Μυριοχαύνη is written, she would be a woman who makes lots of jokes.

Μυοχάνη: ἐπίθετον χασκούσης. εἰ δὲ Μυριοχαύνη γράφοιτο, ἡ ἐπὶ μυρίοις ἂν εἴη χαινουμένη.

Galen, Glossary of Hippocrates’ Terminology, 19.142 K.

III

Serapis <or the woman with her toes splayed> was swollen from a moist belly. Itching started—I don’t know on what day. No progress. She had an abscess in her waist; when it blackened, she died.

Ἡ Σεράπις ἐξ ὑγρῆς κοιλίης ᾤδησεν· κνησμοὶ δ' οὐκ οἶδα ποσταίῃ, οὐ πρόσω· ἔσχε δ’ ἔτι καὶ ἀπόστημα ἐν κενεῶνι, ὅπερ μελανθὲν ἀπέκτεινεν.

Hippocrates, Epidemics 2.2.3, 5.84 Littré (Smith’s text)

Σαράπους: A woman having the toes of her feet spread out and splayed.

Σαράπους: ἡ διασεσηρότας καὶ διεστῶτας ἔχουσα τοὺς δακτύλους τῶν ποδῶν.

Galen, Glossary of Hippocrates’ Terminology, 19.142 K.

IV

And <the Babbling-Woman or> the wife of Stymarges, after a confusion lasting a few days, was very constipated. She aborted a female child after the constipation, was healthy for four months, then became swollen.

Καὶ ἡ Στυμάργεω ἐκ ταραχῆς ὀλιγημέρου πολλὰ στήσασα, καὶ παιδίου μετὰ στάσιν θήλεος ἀποφθορῆς τετραμήνου ὑγιήνασα, ᾤδησεν.

Hippocrates, Epidemics 2.2.4, 5.84-6 Littré (Smith’s text and name for the woman)

Στομάργου: In the second book of the Epidemics, Dioscorides writes as follows: ‘and it refers to manic babbling,’ he says. But others write Στυμάργου and interpret it as a proper name.

Στομάργου: ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ τῶν ἐπιδημιῶν ὁ Διοσκουρίδης οὕτως γράφει καὶ δηλοῦσθαί φησι τοῦ λαλοῦντος μανικῶς. οἱ δὲ ἄλλοι στυμάργου γράφουσι καὶ ὄνομα κύριον ἀκούουσι.

Galen, Glossary of Hippocrates’ Terminology, 19.141 K.

Recreating Democritus’ Party Tricks

I. The Recipe

A while ago, I wrote about a collection of recipes for dinner party games in the Greek magical papyri. The collection is light and frivolous, much more so than its arcane and erotic neighbours. It calls itself paignia—tricks—and it also names its author—Democritus, no less!—something most of the other medical and magical recipes avoid. I doubt anyone thinks Democritus actually wrote these recipes, but I still find the ascription curious. Democritus tends to be associated with magic and alchemy (on this, see Matteo Martelli’s work on the Pseudo-Democritus, and his faculty page + academia.edu), and he’s even sometimes presented as a physician. But these recipes aren’t magic or medicine. They’re party tricks.

Now, along with recipes for drinking without getting drunk and techniques for picking up fellow guests, the text also includes a few practical jokes. The first is a recipe for making bronze tableware look like golden, perhaps an omen of alchemy. I’ll try this one as soon as I get my hands on the materials. Materials for the second one were easier to source: it’s a recipe for making eggs look like apples.

“To make an egg that resembles an apple: having boiled the egg, coat it with a mixture of saffron and wine.”

Ὠὸν ὅμοιον μήλον γενέσθαι· ζέσας τὸ ὠὸν χρεῖε κρόκῳ μείξας μετ’ οἴνου.

PGM VII 170–171

I was recently talking about this recipe with Lucia Raggetti (faculty page, academia.edu) from the AlchemEast project at l’Università di Bologna, who inspired me to try it out. It seemed like a good way to try to understand some puzzles about the text: what kind of eggs would they have used? Did they leave the shell on, like an Easter egg? What kind of wine was it? Does the strength of the wine matter? Could we just use water? And saffron—isn’t it yellow? What kind of yellow apple is this supposed to look like? I would need to experiment.

In the end, with a suggestion from Lucia, I think we’re pretty close to understanding the recipe and getting the joke.

Here’s what I came up with:

View fullsize

Democritean still life: boiled eggs coated with saffron-infused white wine, cut to resemble peaches (with abnormally large stones).

The goal of the recipe seems to be to make the whites of boiled eggs look like the flesh of peaches or apricots. Maybe this conclusion is a bit speculative, but when I showed the results of the experiments to people, these were the ones they found convincing. The other candidates just looked like badly-dyed eggs.

II. Designing the Experiments

The replication of the recipe taught me that imagination and creativity are about as important for designing such experiments as the text itself. I went into the project with a bunch of assumptions about what the recipe was for, assumptions which turned out to be unjustified. I had assumed, for instance, something about the process, namely that I was going to be making Easter eggs; and I had assumed something about the result, namely that I would end up with things that look like little apples.

Because I was starting from these assumptions, my initial design for the experiment was constrained. I came up with what I thought was a thorough test: I would coat the shells of two kinds of eggs (brown and white) using saffron soaked in two kinds of wine (white and red), and I would run two controls, coating each kind of egg with plain red or white wine.

I didn’t realize how constraining these assumptions were until I ran the experiment. What I got looked… well … the results didn’t make convincing Easter eggs, never mind apples (pictured below).

And as it turns out, I had made two mistakes.

The first was to restrict myself to apples. The word written on the papyrus obviously isn’t the English word “apple”—it’s a Greek word, mēlon (μῆλον). This word is by an interesting historical fluke cognate with the English word “melon,” but in Greek it does not refer to cantaloupes or honeydew. Instead, like its Latin cognate, malum, it refers to some kinds of tree fruit. It is usually translated “apple,” like in the Eve and Adam story; and, indeed, “apple” is what I found in most modern translations of the ps.-Democritean paignia. But of course, mēlon doesn’t really mean apple. Its range of meanings is much wider: peaches, citrons, plums, and apricots are all “apples”, or more accurately mēla. The word covers most of the larger tree fruits, which in Greek are usually distinguished by region. Peaches for example are “Persian mēla”; citrons are “Median mēla”, etc.

I knew this. I’ve even written on it before; but, once I had rashly accepted “apple” as a translation, I forgot about the other possibilities. Instead, I’d anticipated a result that wasn’t implied by the text of the papyrus at all.

View fullsize

First attempt at the replication. White-shelled eggs with (1) saffron and red wine (left) and (2) saffron and white wine (right). The brown eggs (not pictured) showed no appreciable colour change.

View fullsize

Peaches, detail, showing characteristic long, slender leaves (left panel of those pictured at the top of the post).

View fullsize

Dyed eggs sliced with shells on to look like apple slices.

My second mistake was to restrict the experiment to dying shells. I didn’t have a principled reason for doing this and the text itself didn’t suggest it. It was more or less force of habit. I’m just used to dyeing egg shells. That’s not to say it was a bad guess (even though I think it was wrong). What I should have done, however, was set up experiments dyeing all the parts of a boiled egg, because the recipe was vague on precisely this point. It doesn’t say what part of the egg is to be coated after you boil it.

Luckily, Lucia caught the mistake. After seeing my yellow Easter eggs, she suggested that I try slicing them to make them look more like what you might find on a plate at a dinner party. These sliced eggs didn’t come out too badly; and it also opened up the possibilities for experimenting. Once the yolks fell out, the imagination took over. It became clear how close the shape and visible texture of the sliced egg was to a slice of peach or apricot.

Once I coated the slices without the yoke and shell, it was immediately obvious.

View fullsize

Peach slices, canned. Image from here.

View fullsize

Boiled egg-white, soaked in white wine infused with saffron.

III. How to Make Eggs that Look Like Peaches

Materials:

• Red wine

• White wine

• Brown eggs

• White eggs

• Saffron (you’ll need lots—I got mine at a market pretty cheap)

View fullsize

Procedure:

The set up for this experiment is pretty straightforward. It also got a bit messy, so best avoid nice clothes and linens.

1. I placed around 30 saffron stigmata in separate glass bowls and soaked them in approx. 10 ml of red or white wine. I used a lot of saffron—so much you could smell it even at an arm’s distance from the bowl. I might have gotten away with less.

2. I let the saffron soak in the wine for around 15 minutes at room temperature. If you don’t use a lot of saffron, let them soak longer.

3. At first, I tried brushing the wine and saffron onto the egg shells, masking half the egg with tape, brushing on the wine, letting them dry, and then painting on the other half. The difference, though, was so minor that I gave up and simply smeared the mixture onto the shells with my fingers without masking. This got me yellow eggs.

4. Lucia suggested slicing the eggs to hide the egg shape and give the impression of a fruit with a rind. It seemed even better to simply remove the shells altogether and try again.

5. After removing the shells, I rolled the eggs around in the wine and saffron.

6. I then sliced them and coated the slices with the saffron and wine mixture again. Sometimes, I removed a slice and left the yolk intact, dimpled with a pencil to look like a peach stone, so that the whole thing looked like something from the Pompeii frescoes.

View fullsize

1. Adding wine to the saffron

View fullsize

2. Letting the saffron soak in the wine

View fullsize

3. Failed experiment: brushing on the saffron mixture

View fullsize

4. Sliced egg with shell, resembling white-fleshed quince slices.

View fullsize

5. Rolling eggs, shelled, in the wine and saffron mixture.

View fullsize

6. Finished product: sliced, with yolk dimpled to look like a peach pit.

IV. Some Conclusions

I shouldn’t read too much into this experiment, but I can’t help but get excited about it. There is something about the process of replicating an ancient recipe that tempts a feeling of familiarity. It’s like being at their table.

I’d love to believe this experiment counts as a piece of evidence for culinary history, that it tells us people used to serve succulent peach slices at their symposia, maybe even with presentations like those we see in the Pompeian frescoes.

And maybe it’s a stretch, but I’d also like to think it adds something to a passage from Sextus Empiricus about yellow apples that always puzzled me:

“The phenomena that strike our senses seem to be complexes of sensations, just as the apple seems to be smooth, fragrant, sweet, and yellow.”

ἕκαστον τῶν φαινομένων ἡμῖν αἰσθητῶν ποικίλον ὑποπίπτειν δοκεῖ, οἷον τὸ μῆλον λεῖον εὐῶδες γλυκὺ ξανθόν.

Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism, 1.94

Maybe Sextus and Democritus went to the same kinds of parties.

View fullsize

Shopping with Galen (and a bit on the epistemology of drugs)

With the holiday season approaching, why not check in with Galen for some shopping advice? Here is what he tells his friends to do to get the best drugs from the rhôpopôlai, the street vendors at the market (I’ve posted about them here). As a bonus, Galen tells us what he takes to be his own innovation in quantifying the active powers in drugs, even throwing in a bit of epistemology and some critical remarks against hair-splitting logicians.

Happy holidays ✨🎄⚗

Galen has just talked about where to keep drugs in the house and he’s reminded us not to keep them near the food…

I encourage my friends to copy me in the following way, too, at least if they want to produce their medical products well. You see, every year, in order that those damned hucksters sell me the very best drugs from all over the world, I thoroughly harass them. Maybe it would be better to complain not only to them, but rather to their wholesalers, and even more to the root-cutters themselves—that’s what they’re called, even though they import from the mountains and into the city not just roots, but also saps, juices, fruits, flowers and blossoms. These people are the first of all to adulterate the drugs.

Therefore, whoever wants to get their hands on remedies from anywhere easily needs to acquire experience with every material derived from plants, and every material derived from both animals and metals, and all those earthy bodies distinct from metals which we bring in for medical use, so that one can discern which of them are real and which are fake. After that, one needs to train following my book in which I wrote about the capacities of simple drugs. For if one turns to what is useful in these notebooks without having prepared, while he may go as far as a rational understanding with respect to the method, he won’t produce anything worthy of it.

For suppose someone knows the things which we mentioned before about tendon injuries, but, because of their ignorance, introduces adulterated drugs into the compounds, or doesn’t even know their capacities precisely from the start. Won’t it be necessary that they will more often go wrong than right? To me it seems completely obvious, but precisely knowing the capacities differs a great deal from knowing them. For merely knowing them means recognizing whether the drug naturally dries, moistens, cools or heats us, while precisely knowing means also recognizing, in addition to this, the quantity of the capacity. For some drugs have a capacity such that, when they come into contact with our bodies, it produces a warm heat, while others produce a moderate one only a little bit stronger than the former; and others even boil so strongly that they can burn. Accordingly, the doctor needs to aim to recognize not only the quality of the condition, but also, one might say, the quantity in it.

For, while quantity is clearly not properly said to be something in [the category of] quality,* it is said to be all the same, in the way a fever, too, is said to be big or small. And the practice of speaking in this way is so common that already these terms have the force of proper speech, like [the words] ‘boxwood,’ ‘coppersmith,’ ‘animal-drawer,’ ‘oakcutter,’ and, in short, like terms that started off as instances of what grammarians call catachresis, but ended up being taken to be said properly. I’ve said these things for the people who want to get into discussions about logic at inappropriate times, but what I was saying when they interrupted me is this: what needs to be heated does not simply need to be heated, but heated with an appropriate measure.

*i.e., quality is not predicated of quantity, e.g., three is no more a kind of heat than it is a shade of red.

τοὺς δ’ ἑταίρους προτρέπω καὶ κατὰ τοῦτο μιμήσεσθαί με βουλομένους γε καλῶς ἐργάζεσθαι τὰ τῆς τέχνης ἔργα. γιγνώσκετε γὰρ, ὅπως ἐξ ἑκάστου τῶν ἐθνῶν τὰ κάλλιστά μοι διακομίζεται καθ’ ἕκαστον ἔτος φάρμακα διὰ τὸ τοὺς ἐπιτρίπτους ῥωποπώλας, παντοίως αὐτοῖς λυμαίνεσθαι. βέλτιον δ’ ἴσως οὐ τούτους μόνους, ἀλλὰ πολὺ μᾶλλον αὐτῶν τοὺς κομίζοντας ἐμπόρους μέμφεσθαι, κᾀκείνων ἔτι μᾶλλον αὐτοὺς τοὺς ῥιζοτόμους μὲν ὀνομαζομένους, οὐδὲνδ’ ἧττον τῶν ῥιζῶν ὀπούς τε καὶ χυλοὺς καὶ καρποὺς, ἄνθη τε καὶ βλάστας ἐκ τῶν ὀρῶν κατακομίζοντας εἰς τὰς πόλεις· οὗτοι γάρ εἰσιν οἱ πρῶτοι πάντων εἰς αὐτὰ πανουργοῦντες.

ὅστις οὖν βούλεται πανταχόθεν βοηθημάτων εὐπορεῖν, ἔμπειρος γενέσθω πάσης μὲν τῆς ἀπὸ τῶν φυτῶν ὕλης, πάσης δὲ τῆς ἀπὸ τῶν ζώων τε καὶ μετάλλων, ὅσα τε γεώδη σώματα χωρὶς μεταλλείας εἰς ἰατρικὴν χρῆσιν ἄγομεν, ὡς διαγινώσκειν αὐτῶν τά τε ἀκριβῆ καὶ τὰ νόθα, καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο γυμνασάσθω κατὰ τὴν ἐμὴν πραγματείαν, ἐν ᾗ περὶ τῆς δυνάμεως ἔγραψα τῶν ἁπλῶν φαρμάκων. εἰ μὴ γὰρ οὕτως παρεσκευασμένος ἥκει πρὸς τὴν ἐκ τῶνδε τῶν ὑπομνημάτων ὠφέλειαν, ἄχρι λόγου μὲν εἴσεται τὴν μέθοδον, ἔργον δ’ οὐδὲν ἄξιον αὐτῆς ἐργάσεται.

φέρε γὰρ αὐτὰ μὲν ἃ προείρηκα περὶ τῶν νευροτρώτων ἐπίστασθαί τινα, δεδολωμένα δὲ φάρμακα δι’ ἄγνοιαν ἐμβάλλειν τοῖς συντιθεμένοις, ἢ μηδὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐπίστασθαι τὰς δυνάμεις ἀκριβῶς αὐτῶν, ἆρα οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον ἔσται πλεονάκις τοῦτον διαμαρτάνειν ἢ κατορθοῦν; ἐμοὶ μὲν καὶ πάνυ δοκεῖ. τὸ δὲ ἀκριβῶς ἐπίστασθαι τὰς δυνάμεις τοῦ μὲν ἐπίστασθαι διαφέρει πάμπολυ. τὸ μὲν γὰρ μόνον ἐπίστασθαι γινώσκειν ἐστὶν, εἰ ξηραίνειν τὸ φάρμακον ἢ ὑγραίνειν ἢ ψύχειν ἢ θερμαίνειν ἡμᾶς πέφυκε. τὸ δ’ ἀκριβῶς ἐπίστασθαι πρὸς τούτῳ καὶ τὸ ποσὸν τῆς δυνάμεώς ἐστιν ἐγνωκέναι. τινὰ μὲν γὰρ φάρμακα δύναμιν ἔχει χλιαρᾶς θερμασίας γεννητικὴν, ὅταν ὁμιλήσῃ τοῖς σώμασιν ἡμῶν, ἔνια δὲ συμμέτρου, καθάπερ ἄλλα βραχὺ ταύτης ἰσχυρότερα, ἕτερα δ’ ἤδη ζεούσης οὕτως ἰσχυρῶς, ὡς καίειν δύνασθαι. χρὴ τοίνυν τὸν ἰατρὸν ἐστοχάσθαι, μὴ μόνον τοῦ ποιοῦ τῆς διαθέσεως, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ κατ’ αὐτὴν ὡς ἂν εἴποι τις ποσοῦ.

λέγεται μὲν γὰρ οὐ πάνυ τι κυρίως τὸ ποσὸν ἐν τῇ ποιότητι. λέγεται δ' οὖν ὅμως, ὅπως καὶ πυρετὸς μέγας καὶ μικρός. καὶ τοσαύτη γε χρῆσίς ἐστι τῶν οὕτω λεγομένων, ὥστ' ἤδη κυρίου δύναμιν ἔχειν αὐτὰ παραπλησίως πυξίδι καὶ χαλκεῖ καὶ ζωγράφῳ καὶ δρυοτόμῳ καὶ συνελόντι φάναι τοῖς ἀρξαμένοις μὲν ἐκ τῆς ὑπὸ τῶν γραμματικῶν ὀνομαζομένης καταχρήσεως, ὕστερον δὲ κυρίοις λέγεσθαι πεπιστευμένοις. ταῦτα μὲν εἴρηταί μοι διὰ τοὺς οὐκ ἐν καιρῷ διαλεκτικευομένους. ὃ δὲ λέγων ἀπέλιπεν ἔστι τοιόνδε, ὅτι τὸ ξηραίνεσθαι δεόμενον οὐχ ἁπλῶς δεῖται τοῦ ξηραίνοντος, ἀλλὰ σὺν τῷ προσήκοντι μέτρῳ.

Galen, On Compound Drugs by Kind (Comp. Med. Gen.) 3.2, 13.570–573 K.