PhA 068 - Tieleman - Galen and Chrysippus on the Soul_Argument and Refutation in the De Placitis Books II - III 1996.pdf

GALEN AND CHRYSIPPUS ON THE SOUL

PHILOSOPHIA ANTIQUA A SERIES OF STUDIES ON ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY FOUNDED BY J.H. WASZINK AND W.J. VERDENIUS EDITED BY

J. MANSFELD, D.T. RUNIA J.C.M. VAN WINDEN

VOLUME LXVIll

TEUN TIELEMAN

GALEN AND CHRYSIPPUS ON THE SOUL ARGUMENT AND REFUTATION IN THE DE PL4CIDS BOOKS 11-lll

GALEN AND CHRYSIPPUS ON THE SOUL ARGUMENT AND REFUTATION IN THE DE PLACITIS BOOKS II-III BY

TEUN TIELEMAN

EJ.BRILL

LEIDEN · NEW YORK · KOLN 1996

The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme The CIP data has been aplied for.

ISSN 0079-1687 ISBN 90 04 10520 4

© Copyright 1996 by E.]. Brill, Leiden, The .Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part qf this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission .from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by EJ. Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid direct!J to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers MA 01923, USA. Fees are sufdect to change. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

For Linda, Laurens and Sebastiaan

TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE.............................................................................................. lX ABBREVIATIONS-NOTICE TO THE READER................................ Xl GENERAL INTRODUCTION................................................................ xiii 1. Aim and Method of the Study............................................. xm 2. Galen and Greek Philosophy............................................... xvu 3. PHP Books II-III: Contents and Style................................... xxn 4. Plato, Hippocrates and Other Authorities........................... xxviii PART ONE GALEN: DIALECTIC AND SCIENCE CHAPTER 1. Introduction................................................................ CHAPTER 2. Galen on Scientific Method (PHPII 1-4) ............... 2.1. Types of Question................................................................. 2.2. Distinguishing the Options................................................ 2.3. Four Kinds of Premises....................................................... 2.4. Analysis and Attributes...................................................... CHAPTER 3. The Seat of the Mind: Inquiry and Refutation (PHPII 4-7) ................................................................................... 3.1. Introduction.......................................................................... 3.2. The Position of the Heart and Brain................................ 3.3. Embryological Arguments............................................... 3.4. Structure, r Form................................................................ 3.5. The Heart and the Passions............................................... 3.6. Excursus: The Third Part of the Soul (PHPVI) .............. 3.7. Essence, Property and Sign............................................... CHAPTER 4. Digestion and Respiration: Diogenes of Babylon and Others (PHPII 8) ................................................................. 4.1. Introduction.......................................................................... 4.2. Two Peripatetic (and Stoic?) Arguments......................... 4.3. Diogenes' First Argument................................................. 4.4. Diogenes' Second Argument............................................ 4.5. Galen's Discussion: An Overall Evaluation.................... CHAPTER 5. The Traditional Background.................................... 5.1. Two Passages from the Prior Analytics.............................. 5.2. The Tradition of Dialectical Topics.................................. CoNCLUSION To PART ONE............................................................

3 8 8 11 12 23 38 38 39 45 47 53 55 60 66 66 67 79 87 101 106 106 110 127

Vlll

TABLE OF CONTENTS PART Two CHRYSIPPUS: DIALECTIC AND PERSUASION

CHAPTER 1. Preliminaries............................................................. 1.1. Introduction.......................................................................... 1.2. The State of the Evidence ................................................... 1.3. Some Modern Interpretations............................................ CHAPTER 2. The Beginning of Chrysippus' Demonstration... 2.1. Galen's Polemical Procedure............................................ 2.2. Chrysippean and Academic Dialectic............................ 2.3. The 'Common Belief......................................................... 2.4. Passions and Synaisthisis: Traditional Ideas.................... 2.5. Chrysippus' Argument from the Passions..................... 2.6. Self-Perception and Oikeiosis: Academic Criticism....... 2. 7. The Passions and the Concept of Tekmenon.................... CHAPTER 3. Chrysippus and Science........................................... CHAPTER 4. Language and Related Phenomena....................... 4.1. Introduction.......................................................................... 4.2. The Heart as the Centre of Verbal Communication..... 4.3. Ego.......................................................................................... 4.4. Cases of Alleged Self-Contradiction................................. CHAPTER 5. Poetry........................................................................... 5.1. Introduction.......................................................................... 5.2. Stoicism and the Poets........................................................ 5.3. Poetry and Articulation: Evidence from Other Sources 5.4. The On the Soul:. Some Aspects of Structure...................... 5.5. Thymos................................................................................... 5.6. The Passions and Spoken Language................................ CHAPTER 6. The Argument from the Passions, Continued..... 6.1. The Argument Described.................................................. 6.2. Paradox ( atopia), Persuasiveness (pithanon) and Inference.............................................................................. CHAPTER 7. Chrysippus' Demonstration: A General Evaluation 7.1. Persuasive Arguments (pithana) in the On the Soul......... 7.2. Chrysippus, Carneades and the Levels of Persuasiveness..................................................................... CoNCLUSION To PART Two ...........................................................

133 133 134 138 147 147 158 160 168 174 177 185 189 196 196 203 206 215 219 219 220 229 233 236 244 249 249

BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................. INDICES...............................................................................................

291 298

255 264 264 273 288

PREFACE This book is a revised edition of my 1992 doctoral dissertation entitled Galen and Chrysippus: Argument and Refutation in the De Placitis Books II-III. It records the results of a research project which started from a simple question: exactly which procedures does Galen follow in quoting from the otherwise lost On the soul of the Stoic scholarch Chrysippus ? Or, from an opposite viewpoint, what purport and status did the quoted passages have in their original Chrysippean context? An answer to these questions may be expected to provide a deeper insight into this rich material which stands out among the scanty remains of the work of this important Stoic philosopher. The two viewpoints involved here determine the overall structure of this book, which divides into two main parts. The first part considers the text from Galen's point of view, whereas the second takes Chrysippus' perspective. Part One is designed as a foil for the subsequent treatment of the Chrysippean fragments in Part Two, but it can also be read in isolation by those interested in Galen's methodology for its own sake. This book is a revised doctoral thesis, so it is appropriate that I say something about the kind of revisions I have undertaken, particularly since the earlier version was circulated among colleagues at home and abroad. In general I have taken the opportunity to update my references: several studies bearing on the concerns of this book were published after I had finished my dissertation. But my conclusions have remained unaltered. In particular, my account in Part Two of the historical relation between the concepts of dialectic of Chrysippus and Carneades is in all essentials the same as that expounded in my 1992 dissertation. Part One, on the other hand, has been revised and expanded to a greater degree. Part of the reason lies in the fact that I have become increasingly aware of the close similarities between Galen's argument and the methodological disquisitions found in such authors as Cicero, Clement of Alexandria, Alexander of Aphrodisias and Boethius-affinities which in my view strengthen the case for Galen's dependence on the ancient tradition concerned with the Aristotelian 'topics', a point that I did not pursue to the same extent in my dissertation. This recognition has induced me to place Galen's argumentative

X

PREFACE

techniques more systematically in the context of the relevant dialectical traditions, which entailed certain alterations in the mode of presentation of my argument. But the main positions taken earlier have not been abandoned. In recent years I had the opportunity to lecture on topics discussed in this book before academic audiences in various places (Utrecht, Leiden, Pavia, Princeton, Rutgers, Austin). Two of the papers delivered on such occasions have also appeared in print (Tieleman [1995a], [ 1995c]). My many intellectual debts to other scholars should be clear from the references to their work throughout my book, and I hope to have acknowledged them in an adequate manner. In the course of this project I have profited from the generous and acute criticisms of Professors Jaap Mansfeld, Jim Hankinson, David Runia and J.C.M. van Winden. To discussions over the years with Keimpe Algra and Han Baltussen, two other members of the Utrecht team, I am indebted for much inspiration regarding the study of later ancient philosophy. Mrs. G. RuniaDeenick did an excellent job producing the final desk-top version. Of course, I claim sole responsibility for such errors as remain. The ambiguous existence led by my dissertation over the past years comes to an end with the appearance of the present edition. I want to express my gratitude to the editors of Philosophia Antiqua for accepting this study for publication in their series. Leeuwarden 29 September 1995

Teun Tieleman

ABBREVIATIONS ANRW DG DK FDS FHS&G

LS LSJ RE SVF

W. Haase- H. Temporini (eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt, Berlin 1972H. Diels, Doxographi Graeci, Berlin 1958 (=1879) H. Diels - W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 3 vols., Berlin 196010 K-H. Hiilser, Die Fragmente zur Dialektik der Stoiker, Stuttgart 1987-1988 W.W. Fortenbaugh- P.M. Huby- R.W. Sharples- D. Gutas, Theophrastus of Eresus: Sources for his Life, Writings and Influence, 2 vols., Leiden etc. 1992. A.A. Long- D.N. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers, 2 vols., Cambridge 1987. H. G. Liddell- R. Scott- H. Stuart Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford 1968 (=19409) Pauly's Real-Encyclopiidie der Altertums-Wissenschaft, herausg. von G. Wissowa, Stuttgart 1894 etc. ]. von Arnim, Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, 3 vols., Leipzig 1903-5; vol. 4, indexes by M. Adler, Leipzig 1924

NOTICE TO THE READER When quoting Greek texts, I have used the modern standard editions: the Oxford Classical Texts for Plato, Aristotle and Diogenes Laertius (D.L.), the Loeb editions for Plutarch and Sextus Empiricus and the Berlin edition of the Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca for the Greek commentators on Aristotle. For other authors see the editions referred to in the Index locorum. For Galen I have used the editions available in the Corpus Medicorum Graecorum ( CM G); for instance, references to the De placitis Hippocratis et Platonis (PHP) give book-, chapter- and paragraph-numbers in De Lacy's edition in the CMG series (Berlin 1978-84). Further I have used the Teubner editions of the Scripta Minora (SM) by Marquardt, Von Muller and Helmreich and that of the De usu partium (UP) by

XII

ABBREVIATIONS

Helmreich. In all other cases the still indispensable Opera Omnia edition by K.G. Kiihn (20 vols. Leipzig 1821-1833, repr. Hildesheim 1964-1965) has been used. In general the names of ancient authors and the titles of their works are abbreviated according to LSJ and the Oxford Latin Dictionary. For Galen, LSJ specifies no individual works and no single system of abbreviations has as yet imposed itself as standard. I use the abbreviations proposed by R.J. Hankinson (1991c), Appendix 2 ('A guide to the editions and abbreviations of the Galenic corpus'). Most of these are self-explanatory; but if needed, some assistance is given by the Index locorum at the end of this volume.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1. Aim and Method of the Study In August of the year 162 Galen of Pergamum (129-c.210 CE) took up residence in Rome, where he hoped to establish a reputation as a practitioner and theorist of medicine. As part of his campaign of self-advertisement, he performed anatomical experiments before members of the Roman upper class, other doctors and philosophers.1 Most sensational were those designed to demonstrate the structure and workings of the nervous system. Galen thereby entered the long-standing controversy over the seat of the 'ruling part' (ilyqwva:6v) of the soul, or intellect.2 He was convinced that his experiments decided the issue in favour of Plato's tripartite theory: reason resides in the brain, anger in the heart and desire in the belly (specified by Galen as the liver). This meant defeat (or so he thought) for those who located the main psychic functions in the heart-the Peripatetics, most of the Stoics and a number of physicians.3 The discussions Galen had with his contemporaries about the psychic functions and their location are reflected in books 1 On Galen's first Roman sojourn (162-166 CE) we are informed by his On prognosis, ed. V. Nutton (CMG V 8.1) in particular; cf. esp. 5.9-21 recounting one of his anatomical performances; cf. also Lib. Prop. SM vol. II, p.101.2 ff. Muller. On chronological problems see Nutton (1973) 158 ff. On his demonstrations see further H. von Staden, 'Anatomy as rhetoric: Galen on dissection and persuasion', Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 50 ( 1995) 4867; A. Debru, 'Les demonstrations medicales a Rome au temps de Galien', in Van der Eijk et al. (1995) vol. 1, 69-81. In the same period Galen wrote several anatomical tracts (now lost), including one concerned with vivisection, AA II 215-7 K. On the competition among the Roman medical profession cf. his treatise How to recognize the best physicians (Opt. Med. Cogn., CMG Supp. Or. IV, ed. Z. Iskandar), with V. Nutton, 'The patient's choice: a new treatise by Galen', CQ 40 ( 1990) 236-57; and his (lost) autobiographical tract On slander, Lib. Prop. II, p.122.2 M. On Galen as a figure in Roman society see J. Ilberg, 'Aus Gal ens Praxis', Neue Jahrbiicher fur das klassische Altertum, Geschichte und deutsche Literatur XV (1905) 276-312, repr. in H. Flashar (ed.), Antike Medizin (Darmstadt 1971) 361-461; G.W. Bowersock, Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (Oxford 1969) 59-76; J. Kollesch, 'Galen und die zweite Sophistik', in Nutton (1981) 1-11. 2 On this debate, with a heavy concentration on the doxographic material, see the compendious investigation of Mansfeld (1990b), id. (1991). 3 See e.g. PHP VII 1.1-4.

XIV

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

I-VI 4 of his On the Doctrines of Hippocrates and Plato (hereafter: PHP), a wide-ranging treatise which promulgates a high-minded, philosophically grounded ideal of medicine. Here we find reports of his experiments concerned with the nervous system. From a modern point of view, they may certainly rank among the most sophisticated and advanced known from antiquity. Exploring the spinal column and nerves and describing the effects of sections in various places, Galen seems to inaugurate a new era, putting the questions at issue in a properly scientific context at a time when it was still acceptable to refer to popular notions and venerable men of old.5 Yet this modernistic picture of Galen's achievement, though not entirely unjustifiable, is also a bit blithe; it should be both nuanced and amplified in the interest of a more properly historical account. In particular, it should be acknowledged that the experimental reports are embedded within a wider argumentative framework which conditions their scope and function in important ways (cf. § 4). How, for instance, do the experiments relate to Galen's project of proving the Platonic tripartition correct? In PHP 1-111 we encounter not only Galen the anatomist and experimenter but also the dialectician and theorist of science. In the introductory section of book II (1-4.4) he is quite explicit about his demonstrative method and its models and in the discussion that follows methodological concerns continue to feature prominently. In a sense, the question of the seat of the psychic functions he uses as a test-case for the effectiveness of his method. In consequence, these books are an important quarry for the study of Galen's methodology. In the background stands his (lost) magnum opus on scientific method, On Demonstration (Ilept c:bto8d~ero~, in 15 books), written not long before the PHP and four times referred to (II 2.3, 2.23, 3.1, 3.26). 6 We may compare the first two books of his therapeutic chef d'oeuvre, On the Therapeutic Method, whose explication of the 'logical method' also seems to build upon what he had earlier set out in the Dem. (cf. MM I, X 39 K.). But unlike these 4 Of Book I we possess only the closing sections, which on De Lacy's estimation amount to about one third of the original whole, which must have been rather long; see De Lacy (1978-84) vol. 1, 12-13. 5 For modern assessments of Galen's experiments cf. Debru (1994) 1719 f. 6 Von Muller (1897) provides a survey of its contents based on references in the extant works. His compilation offers a wealth of material relating to Galen's theory of scientific demonstration. On Dem. and Von Muller's reconstruction see now also Barnes (1991) 67-9.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

XV

books, the first books of the PHP, with their anatomical and physiological subject-matter, still await examination from a philosophical point of view. 7 Galen's experiments and methodological statements are not the only striking features of these books. No less intriguing are his extensive verbatim quotations from the otherwise lost On the soul (Ilept 'lfUXf\c;) by the Stoic scholarch Chrysippus of Soloi (c. 280-205 BCE). 8 Galen uses these passages not only as proof-texts for his criticisms, but also as stepping-stones to further his own argument. Amidst the miserable debris of Chrysippus' original writings, these fragments provide rich yet underused material which is directly relevant to the study of the psychology, dialectic and other facets of Stoic philosophy. On the other hand, we have to acknowledge certain problems and limitations due to the fact that the selections from Chrysippus' text are subject to the pull of Galen's polemical and dialectical procedures. Moreover, we have no other sources at our disposal to check Galen's claims and assess his selections. 9 Apart from Stoic material preserved elsewhere, the study of the Chrysippean text therefore involves that of its Galenic context. 'Context' here should be taken in a rather wide sense: one should not merely look at the introductory formulas and comments surrounding the quotations (which are also printed by Von Arnim in his SVF) but also acquaint oneself with Galen's aims and methods in the course of his whole argument, some of which are likely to reflect traditional ways of responding to Stoic positions and arguments. Likewise, we also face the task of reconstructing the doctrinal and dialectical context of Chrysippus' argument in view of Stoic fragments and testimonies preserved by a wide variety of other sources. Given the nature of the Galenic text, it is rewarding, indeed mandatory, to investigate the argument of one thinker while constantly looking at the other. This is what will be attempted in the present study. I have already indicated why this approach is relevant and important for early Stoic studies. As to Galen, it 7 On MM books I and II see Hankinson (1991c); Barnes (1991). Fragments (with information from the Galenic context) assembled by Von Arnim as SW II 879-910; 911 constitutes his reconstruction of the second half of book I. See further infra, p. 136 ff. 9 See further infra, 136 n. 11. 8

XVI

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

should be said that the present inquiry will be conducted in the light of a number of recent studies which have thrown much light on the specific nature of Galen's philosophy, in particular on the methodological assumptions that underlie his distinctive philosophical outlook (see § 2). Arguably, most of Galen's original contributions are to be located in the field of methodology. This justifies the selection of PHP 11-111 for the reasons we have indicated. In the present state of Galenic studies it makes good sense to subject one particular treatise, or one part of a treatise, to a careful examination. The revival of interest in Galen among historians of Greek philosophy is a fairly recent phenomenon. Existing accounts are often based on larger selections from his writings. The time has now come to supplement this picture of his thought and achievement with studies of a more detailed kind. Moreover, the problem of the coherence and development of his thought, concerning which as yet little is known, is best approached on the basis of more detailed studies such as the one embarked on here. It goes without saying that, in examining PHP II-III, one should take account of Galen's psychological views as we11. 10 The main focus, however, will be on his methodology. For this reason the chief area of concern of the first part of this study will be to investigate the nature of Galen's argument against its historical and cultural background. Questions that we shall pose are: what procedures is he following? how far is he applying a coherent methodology? how are his dialectical techniques related to his anatomical experiments? Further, we should try and form a picture of the background provided by the literary traditions involved, comparing, notably, the genre of philosophical polemic (cf. Plutarch's anti-Stoic treatises) as well as doxographic compilations. Included in the above questions is the more specific one of the role played by Galen's extensive quotations from Chrysippus and other philosophers. It is only when we have resolved all these issues that we will be in a position to understand and explain Galen's judgements on the Stoic philosopher's mode of argument. In speaking about his method Galen appeals to the treatises of the Aristotelian Organon (as well as to Theophrastus' lost Second Analytics) .u It is highly improbable that he studied these difficult 10 On Galen's psychology see in particular Manuli and Vegetti (1988) and Hankinson (1991b) and (1992b). ll PHP II 2.4; cf. 3.12, 3.23-4. On Galen's commentaries on some of these

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

xvii

treatises without being aided and affected by the interpretations and commentary literature available in his day. It is only when we have sufficient knowledge of the literary and scholastic traditions involved that we can isolate what is peculiar to him from what is traditional. One does not want to present as distinctively, or even brilliantly, Galenic what, for instance, one can read in Platonist textbooks of this period. In Part Two I shall investigate the nature of Chrysippus' method, paying special attention to its argumentative and epistemological aspects-which also involves the structure of the great Stoic's argument. We shall exploit the insights into the methodological scheme constituting the context of the fragments gained in Part One. Several questions raise themselves: what kinds of argument does Chrysippus use? who and what are the targets of his criticism? what epistemological status do his arguments have? how does he reach his conclusions? what is the role of medical science in his arguments? In order to answer these questions a rather detailed examination of the rich material will be necessary, if only because of the lack of detailed scholarly work done on these fragments.

2. Galen and Greek Philosophy Galen's voluminous writings are a mer a boire for historians of ancient medicine, society and philosophy alike. But only in recent years have historians of ancient philosophy set out to study him as a philosopher in his own right. This line of approach has long been discouraged by inveterate preconceptions relating to his 'eclecticism' and elusive double role as a doctor and philosopher. The traditionally pejorative term 'eclectic' (whose Greek equivalent is only occasionally found in ancient authors) has been often used by modern historians to label philosophers of the first two centuries CE. This label, like its counterpart 'orthodox', has always had a derogatory ring: it connoted lack of originality, lack of systematical coherence and other things less commendable in a philosopher. During the past few decades, however, the label has fell more and more into disuse in direct proportion to the increase in work done on the period. Through an extended process of syncretism, the cultural ambiance of authors like Plutarch, Galen and treatises, cf. infra, p. 3 f.

XVlll

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

others had assimilated many elements from various schools to the point where they were no longer felt to be distinctive of these schools. The procedure of ferreting out 'Platonisms', 'Stoicisms' and 'Aristotelianisms' in the philosophical writings of the period is barren precisely because it fails to take account of the implications of this process of syncretism. This general re-appraisal has also facilitated a proper understanding of Galen's peculiar position. Moreover, insofar as he shows a selective attitude vis-a-vis the different philosophical schools, this is now recognized as rooted in a well-considered concept of science and its methods. 12 Thus he refrained from pronouncing on a number of issues which traditionally kept the schools divided: the substance and immortality of the soul, the nature of God etc. These questions he considered unsoluble in the absence of any means of empirical testing. Ironically, this insistence on empirical verifiability, which used to render his claim to philosophical respectability suspect, adds considerably to his present appeal among historians of ancient thought. The bias attached to Galen's eclecticism has been compounded by his medical capacity, 13 which seems to consign him to the

12 Galen uses the word from which our term 'eclecticism' has been derived in a relevant and favourable context: see Lib. Prop. SM II p. 94.26 ff. Muller: [36.mw.vovi\~ ... tov t6nov) was etymological. It is hard to think of a reason why, within such a brief space, Galen would be inconsistent in this respect. Rather, he should be taken to be referring to two distinct passages concerned with speech. It can be shown that he tends to speak of 'the argument about speech', or similar expressions, with reference to various passages (see infra in text). This apparent discrepancy has led Von Arnim astray, who, though not overlooking III 5.21-2 (cf. SVF II 884), printed the whole quotation from Chrysippus (PHP II 5.15-20) among the etymological fragments (SVF II 911, p.260, 1.3 ff.). This mistake has serious consequences for the reconstruction of Chqsippus' argument as a whole. 2 See supra, p. 234. 24 25

270

PART TWO: CHAPTER SEVEN

Hence a valid and true philosophical argument is more likely to have been put fmward in the former type of context. Accordingly, Galen refers to the arguments here as 'rather important' (22, p.204.29). 29 Does Chrysippus' syllogism qualify as a proof (a7tOO£t~t