New Light on Galen's Moral Philosophy

Richard Walzer

doi:10.1017/S0009838800027786

New Light on Galen's Moral Philosophy

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009

Richard Walzer

Show author details

Richard Walzer: Affiliation:
Oriel College, Oxford

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

The first publication of a hitherto lost work on moral philosophy by Galen deserves the attention of scholars interested in the thought of one who was the last great physician of antiquity, who by a peculiar chain of circumstances became the teacher of the Middle Ages in scientific medicine, and who in his own day enjoyed also success as a philosopher. Posterity, it is true, did not regard his philosophical work with the favour it bestowed on his achievements in medicine, and hence a very small number of his philosophical writings has survived to the present day either in the original text or in Arabic translations.

Type: Research Article
Information: The Classical Quarterly , Volume 43 , Issue 1-2 , January 1949 , pp. 82 - 96

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838800027786 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Classical Association 1949

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 82 note 1} Cf. the treatise Quod optimus medicus sit etiam philosophus, vol. i, pp. 53–63 Kühn = Scripta minora, vol. ii (Leipzig, 1891), pp. 1–8Google Scholar Müller.

^{page 82 note 2} Op. cit., cap. 1, and, for example, in the newly discovered text De tnoribus, p. 43. 12 Kraus and the quotation of the full text of Galen in Usaibi'a, Ibn Abi, Valuable Information on the Classes of Physicians, i, p. 43Google Scholar. 17 Muller (= p. 18. 15 ff. Kraus). Cf. De plac. Hippocr. et Platonis, i, p. 133 f., no. 5 Müller;.

^{page 83 note 3} Scr. min. ii, p. 6. 4 ff. M. (= vol. i, p. 59. 9 ff.Kühn).

^{page 82 note 4} A fresh examination of his philosophy, in the light of our improved knowledge of hellenistic and neoplatonic thought, is long overdue.

^{page 82 note 5} Cap. 12 (Scripta minora, ii, pp. 121. 5–122. 6Müller = vol. xix, p. 45. 9–46.10 Kühn).

^{page 82 note 6} Recent edition by Boer, W. de in the Corpus Medicorum Graecorum, v. 4. 1. 1 (Leipzig and Berlin, 1937)Google Scholar. This edition of the very corrupt text is far superior to the editions of Kühn (vol. v, pp. 1–103) and Marquardt, (Scripta minora, i, pp. 1–81)Google Scholar. The work was known also to the Arabs, cf. Ishāq, Hunain ibn, Über die syrischen und arabischen Galen-Übersetzungen (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, xvii. 2; Leipzig, 1925)Google Scholar, no. 118 Bergsträsser. For Arabic translations of other ethical treatises by Galen cf. Hunain, op. cit., nos. 120,121; Ibn Abῑ Usaibi'a, op. cit. i, p. 87. 1 Müller; AbBakr Muhammad ibn Zakarῑyā ar-Rāzῑ, Opera Philoet sophica, i (Cairo, 1939), p. 35 KrausGoogle Scholar; Bergsträsser, G., Hunain ibn Ishāq und seine Schule (Leiden, 1913), pp. 24, 70Google Scholar; Meyerhof, M., ‘Autobiographische Bruchstvicke Galens aus arabischen Quellen’, Archiv f. Geschichte d. Medizin, xxii (1929), p. 85 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 82 note 7} Rosenthal, F., Journal of the American Oriental Society, lxv (1945), p. 68 fCrossRef Google Scholar.

^{page 82 note 8} Bulletin of the Faculty of Arts of the University of Egypt, vol. v. 1 (1937)Google Scholar, Sectio Arabica (published Cairo, 1939).

^{page 83 note 1} περ ἠθν ττταρα De libr. propr., p. 121. 10 M. = vol. xix, p. 45. 12 K.

^{page 83 note 2} Codex Taimūr Pāshā 290. 6 Akhlāq, fols. 191–235. In addition we have a few references to and even some verbal quotations of the full text in later Arabic writers, particularly in Abū ‘All Miskawaih*s (died A.D. 1030) Kitāb tahdhῑb al-akhlāq, an interesting work on moral philosophy which deserves a special analysis (cf. Encyclopedia of Islam, ii, col. 429).

^{page 83 note 3} It was not unusual to compose summaries of Syriac and Arabic translations of Greek works, cf. Hunain, op. cit., nos. 10, 57, 72, 92, 95, 102, 104; Walzer, H. Ritter–R., Arabische Übersetzungen griechischer Ärzte in Stambuler Bibliotheken (Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, 1934), p. 832 (46)Google Scholar.

^{page 83 note 4} Cf. Hunain, op. cit., no. 119; Encyclopedia of Islam,s.v. ‘Mūsa,banu’. The work, of which there is no trace in later Greek literature, appears to have been rather popular in the Eastern world.

^{page 83 note 5} Cap. 6. 1–9 (vol. v, pp. 27.6, 30. 3 Kühn = p. 19. 8 ff. de Boer).

^{page 83 note 6} Cap. 7. 7–17 (vol. v, pp. 37.4–40, ii. Kühn = p. 25. 15 ff. de Boer), De moribus, i, pp. 28. 15–31. 9 Kraus. Cf. below, p. 91.

^{page 83 note 7} Vol. iv, p. 768. 6–14 Kuhn = Scr. min. ii, pp. 32. 14–33. 4 Müller. For cap. 11 (vol. iv, pp. 814. 8–822 Kühn = Scr. min. ii, pp. 73. 3–79) cf. below, p. 94.

^{page 83 note 8} p. 26. 6 Kraus: ‘I have shown in my book De placitis Hippocratis et Platonis and explained there that there is something in man in which thinking takes place, and something else which is the source of anger, and a third which is the source of appetite.’ This work is also one of our principal sources of the moral philosophy of the Stoic philosopher Posidonius, cf. Edelstein, L., ‘The Philosophical System of Posidonius’, American Journal of Philology, xlvii (1936), pp. 286 ffCrossRef Google Scholar., 305 ff.; Reinhardt, K., Poseidonios (München, 1921), pp. 263 ffGoogle Scholar.; Pohlenz, K., Poseidonios’ Affektenlehre und Psychologie (Nachr. d. Ges. d. Wiss. zu Göttingen, phil.-hist. Kl. 1921), pp. 163 ff.Google Scholar; Reinhardt, K., Kostnos undSympaihie (München, 1926), pp. 388 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 83 note 9} S. Vogt, De Galeni in libellis κατ’ İητρεῖον commentariis (Dissertation Marburg, 1910), P. 3.

^{page 83 note 10} p. 23. 7 Kraus. Ibn Abῑ Usaibi'a, op. cit. i, p. 76. 19–23 M.; Müller, A., ‘Zur Geschichte des Commodus’, Hermes, xviii (1883), pp. 623 ffGoogle Scholar., also Th. Mommsen, , Gesammelte Schrifien, iv, p. 514 fGoogle Scholar.; Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll, s.v. Tigidius Perennis. We can thus fix also the hitherto uncertain relative date of the treatise De affectuum et peccatorum dignotione in which the publication of the De moribus is presupposed (cf. Hberg, J., ‘Über die Schriftstellerei des Klaudios (!) Galenus’, Rhein. Mus. lii [1897], p. 611)Google Scholar and strengthen the case for a late date (after A.D. 193) of the treatise That the faculties of the soul follow the temperaments of the body (cf. ibid. xlvii [1892], p. 510; li [1896], p. 189).

^{page 84 note 1} Op. cit., no. 119.

^{page 84 note 2} Seneca, Epist. 95. 65: ‘(Posidonius)… ait utilem futuram et descriptionem cuiusdam virtutis; hanc Posidonius ethologian vocat, quidam characterismon appellant signa cuiusque virtutis ac vitii et notas reddentem, quibus inter se similia discriminentur.’

^{page 84 note 3} Cf. for example ii, p. 41.1 Kraus: ‘…man is free and master of his will. And what could be worthier for him… than to put his soul in the highest rank of honour. And there is no greater honour (of this kind) than the imitation of God within the limits of human capacity. And this goal is reached by disregarding present pleasures and giving preference to the noble.’

^{page 84 note 4} Cf. for example ii, p. 35. 17 Kraus: ‘Everybody praises and admires… those who dedicate their life-time exclusively to the activities of the rational soul like Socrates, Plato, and others, or, for πιλανθρωπα'ς (cf. Baynes, N. H., Byzantine Empire [London, 1925], p. 70Google Scholar) to the work of politics and legislation, as Solon and others did for the benefit of mankind, or to philosophy and government alike: these are the best people.'. No representatives of the third group are recorded in the summary, and one may well doubt whether Galen mentioned any particular philosopher-king in the full text of his work. I can find no exact parallel to this statement, and I am almost sure that it does not represent an original view of Galen's but goes back to some earlier source.

^{page 84 note 5} The most impressive example is to be found p. 39. 20 ff. Kraus, where the rather pedestrian style of philosophical argumentation rises to the level of literary prose. I shall deal with this section in a special study.

^{page 84 note 6} Ten pages in Kraus's edition of the summary refer to bk. 1, 7 to bk. 2, 3 to bk. 3, 7 to bk. 4.

^{page 84 note 7} As explained in Republic, Phaedrus, and Timaeus.

^{page 85 note 1} Philodemus, пερ θν κα βων. πιλοδμου τν κατ’ ξειργασμνων περ θῶν καὶ βίων κ τν Zνωνος σχολῶν, ὅ οτι περ παρρησασ, ed. A. Olivieri, Leipzig, 1914; Philodemi De ira liber, ed. Wilke, C., Leipzig, 1914Google Scholar.

^{page 85 note 2} Cf., however, Aristotle, , Rhet. 2Google Scholar. 2. Galen's work has nothing in common with Theophrastus’ χαρακτρες.

^{page 85 note 3} We learn, for example, from this book that Antiochus was also interested in the irrational faculties of the soul and liked arguments based on νργεια manifest facts and empirical observation. But Antiochus claimed to revive early Peripatetic thought, whereas Galen relies on Plato's views on θος or what he believes to have been Plato's views. Cf. also Walzer, R., Magna Morcdia und aristotelische Ethik (Berlin, 1929), pp. 188 ffGoogle Scholar., 201, 219, 224 n. 2; Dirlmeier, H., Die Oikeiosis-Lehre Theophrasts (Philologus, Suppl.- Bd. 30, Leipzig, 1937)Google Scholar.

^{page 85 note 4} Plutarch, however, presupposes the renewed study of Aristotle's lecture courses inaugurated, during Cicero's lifetime, by the edition of Andronicus of Rhodes. The author on whom Galen depends does not care much more for Aristotle than did Cicero, for example, and may have lived before the time of ‘Andronicus and the school of commentators which followed him.

^{page 85 note 5} Miskawaih (cf. above, p. 83, n. 2) appears to refer to the same passage and to have preserved another section of the same argument. He says (p. 25. 17 ff. Cairo edition): ‘ηθος is a condition (διθεσις) of the soul which induces it to its actions without consideration and reflection. This disposition is divided’ in two parts. One of them is inborn.(πὑσει), based on the temperament <cof the body> (cf. Galen's work referred to above, p. 83, n. 7), like the man whom the smallest thing incites to anger and who is roused by the most unimportant cause, and like the man who is faint-hearted on account of a trifling thing as he who is frightened at the slightest sound which affects his ear or is terrified by news which he hears, and like the man who laughs excessively over the most unimportant thing which excites his admiration, and like the man who is grieved and sad about the most trifling thing which affects him.’

^{page 86 note 1} Stobaeus, vol. ii, p. 38. 3–15 Wachsmuth.

^{page 86 note 2} De virt. mor. 4, p. 443 C; 444 b.

^{page 86 note 3} Cf. above and p. 85, n. 3.

^{page 86 note 4} Cf. Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta coll. Arnim, H. v., vol. iii, no. 466Google Scholar.

^{page 86 note 5} For Posidonius' lifetime cf. Jacoby, F., Die FragmentedergriechischenHistoriker, ii. C (Berlin, 1926), p. 154 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 86 note 6} Galen, , De placitis Hippocratis et Platonis, iv (p. 400Google Scholar. 14 Müller ⁼ vol. v, p. 424. 17 Kühn):‘οὓτω γα κα κλαίοντες παύονται κα μ βουλόμενοι κλαίουσιν; ταν μοας τ ὑποκεμενα φαντασίας ποιῇ’ τν αἰτίαν ρωτᾷ κνταûθα Ποσειδώνιος δι' ἧν πολλο μ βουλόμενοι πολλάκις κλαίουσιν πισχεîν μ δυνάμενοι τ δάκρυα, κα ἄλλοι κλαίειν τι βουλόμενοι φθάνουσι παυόμενοι' γίγνεσθαι δέ φησι δι τς παθητικς κινήσεις ἦ σφδρα γκειμένας ὡς μ κρατεîσθαι πρς τς βουλήσεως ἦ παντελς πεπαυ οὕτω γρ ἥ τε τοû λγου μάχη κα διαφορ πρς τ ναργς σωθήσεται, οὐ μα Δία, ὡς Χρύσιππός φησι, διά τινας ατίας συλλογίστους τούτων γινομένων λλ δι τς ὑπ τν παλαιν εἰρημένας. Cf. also Strabo 2. 3. 8.

^{page 86 note 7} Cf. Edelstein, op. cit., pp. 305 ff. and above, p. 83, n. 8.

^{page 86 note 8} This controversy was by no means a mere controversy of two hundred years ago taken up by Galen for some scholarly reasons; the antagonism between the new Platonism and orthodox Stoic thought was still quite alive, and the old dispute helped the present issue.

^{page 86 note 9} Galen, , De plac iv, p. 401Google Scholar. II–15 M. = p. 425. 13–17 K.

^{page 86 note 10} p. 26. 1–5 Kraus.

^{page 87 note 1} 7, p. 447 a; 10, p. 449 d.

^{page 87 note 2} Cf. Galen, , De plac. iv, p. 397Google Scholar, 1–3 M. = p. 421. 7–9 K.; op. cit. v, p. 405. 5–14 M. = p. 429. 10–430. 2 K.

^{page 87 note 3} Cf. above, p. 83, n. 8 and p. 84.

^{page 87 note 4} In a passage preserved by Abū Sulaimān as Sijistānī, cf. p. 22. 2ff., 8ff. Kraus. Cf. also Al-Fārābī, Concordance of Plato and Aristotle (cf. recently, Kraus, P., ‘Plotin chez les Arabes’, Bulletin de I' lnstitut d'Égypte, xxiii, 1942, p. 269 f.)Google Scholar in ‘Philosophische Abhandlungen’, pp. 16, 20 (transl. p. 27) Dieterici. Al-Fārābī simply substitutes Plato for Galen.

^{page 87 note 5} Eudorus of Alexandria (1st cent. B.C.) ap. Stob. Anthol., vol. ii, pp. 49.8-50.10 Wachsmuth.

^{page 87 note 6} Cf. Dorrie, H., ‘Der Platoniker Eudoros von Alexandria’, Hermes, lxxix (1944), pp. 31 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 87 note 7} Cf. Rep. 2. 375 c 6 ff., and, for example, Rep. 6. 490 c, 496b and passages concerning the Φύσɩς φɩƛσοφος such as 486 b 3,486 d 10,487 a 3; Politicus 308 e, 310 a. Cf. Phaedo 82 b. De moribus, p. 28.4 Kraus: ‘not every dog and horse can be trained’.

^{page 87 note 8} Leges 12. 963 e; cf. Laches 196 e ff.; Rep. 4. 430b; Epin.975e, and Walzer, R., Magna Moralia und aristotelische Ethik (Berlin, 1929), p. 207 fGoogle Scholar. But all these passages deal only with φυσɩκ νδρεα.

^{page 88 note 9} Cf. Dodds, E. R., ‘Plato and the Irrational’, Journal ofHellenic Studies, lxv (1945–1947), pp. 16 ffCrossRef Google Scholar., particularly pp. 18 ff.

^{page 88 note 10} Cf. 0. Regenbogen in Pauly-Wissowa- Kroll, Realencylopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, Supplementband, VII, s.v., Theo-phrastos, col. 1488.

^{page 87 note 11} Cf. R. Walzer, op. cit., p. 77.

^{page 88 note 1} Cf. iv, p. 45.1ff. Kraus.

^{page 88 note 2} The epitomist appears to have omitted the sections on children and starts at once with the ἤθη of animals.

^{page 88 note 3} Porphyry, , De abstinentia, 3. 9 (p. 199. 8 Nauck)Google Scholar.

^{page 88 note 4} Porphyry, op. cit. (p. 199. 4 Nauck).

^{page 88 note 5} Galen, , De usu part. i. 2Google Scholar (vol. iii, p. 2. 5 ff. Kühn = vol. i, p. 1. 13 ff. Helmreich). It is interesting to compare this text with the first chapter of the περ ἠθν.

^{page 88 note 6} Porphyry, op. cit. (p. 200. 23 Nauck).

^{page 88 note 7} Cf. Galen, , Quod an. virt. 7 (vol. iv, p. 792.!7–793. 2 K. = Scr. min. ii, pp. 52. 19–53. 2 M.)Google Scholar

^{page 89 note 1} Much relevant material has been collected by Tappe, C., De Philonis libro qui inscribitur ՚Αƛξανδρος ἤ περ Το ƛγου ἒχειν τ ἂλογα ζῷα quaestiones selectae, Dissertation Gottingen, 1912Google Scholar.

^{page 89 note 2} Cf. Snell, B., ‘Die Entdeckung des Geistes’, Studien zur Entstehung des europäischen Denkens bet den Griechen (Hamburg, 1946), pp. 173, 180Google Scholar.

^{page 89 note 3} Cf. above, p. 87, n. 8.

^{page 89 note 4} One may mention the descriptions of the character of certain animals, referred to also by Galen, which occur in his zoological writings: lion (Bonitz, H., Index Aristotelicus [Berlin, 1870], p. 429^b28)Google Scholar, hare (op. cit., p. 421^a25), stag (op. cit., p. 235^a15), dog (op. cit., p. 4i8^b28). Galen, however, draws on much more comprehensive research. Cf. Walzer, R., op. cit., p. 200Google Scholar

^{page 89 note 5} Cf. Jaeger, W., Aristotle (Oxford, 1934), p. 352Google Scholar; 0. Regenbogen, op. cit., col. 1423.

^{page 89 note 6} Cf. Cicero, Defin. v. 39 ffGoogle Scholar.; cf. Dirlmeier, H.Zur Ethik des Theophrast, Philologus, xc (1935), p. 248 ffGoogle Scholar. On Galen's references to plants cf.below, p. 93 and n. 5. The comic poet Philemon is under the influence of a similar doctrine, cf Stob, . Anthol., vol. iii. 2Google Scholar. 26 (p. 183. 13 Hense) = fab. inc. fr. 3 Com. iv, p. 32 M.; Walzer, R., ‘Zum Hautontimorumenos des Terenz’, Hermes, lxx (1935), pp. 197 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 89 note 7} Cf., for example, Plutarch, , De invidia etotio 4Google Scholar; De tranquillitate animae 13.

^{page 89 note 8} Alexandras ἢ Περ το λγου ἒχειν τ ζῷα(Philo ed. Richter, [1828–1830], vol. viiiGoogle Scholar: translation from the Armenian). Cf. Leisegang, H., Philologus, xcii (1937), pp. 152 ffGoogle Scholar.; Nock, A. D., Classical Review, lvii (1943), p. 78Google Scholar.

^{page 89 note 9} De sollertia animalium, Πτερα τγ ζῴων προνιμώτερα τ χερσαῖα ἢ τ ἒνυδρα.

^{page 89 note 10} De abstinentia, Περποχς μψχων.

^{page 89 note 11} Galen, , De plat. v. 6 (p. 457Google Scholar. 2–9 M. = p. 476. 11 –477. 2 K.). Cf. also op. cit. v (p. 438. 1 M. = p. 459. i 7 K.); iv, p. 400. 5 ( = p. 424. 7 K.); vi, p. 490. 1 ff. M. ( = p. 505. iff. K.), etc., pp. 133ff.M.

^{page 90 note 1} p. 28. 15 Kraus.

^{page 90 note 2} p. 45. 3 ff. Kraus.

^{page 90 note 3} Cf. also Posidonius ap. Galen, , De plac. v. (pp. 438. 12–439. 3 M. = p. 460. 10–17 K.)Google Scholar; Cicero, , De off. 1. 105. Cf. below, p. 95, n. 5Google Scholar.

^{page 90 note 4} Cf. Arist. Hist. Anitn. 8.1. 588^a18: ἒνεστι γ ν τοῖς πλεστοις κα τν ἂλλων ζῴων ἲχνη τν περ ψυχν τρπων ἂπερ π τν νθρώπων πανερωτρας ἔχει τς διαπορς. ^a31. 9. 1. 608^b 4. Cicero, , Defin. 5. 43Google Scholar; Walzer, R., Magna Mor alia und Aristotelische Ethik, p. 200 f. Cf. above, p. 89, n. 5Google Scholar.

^{page 90 note 5} Galen wrote a special treatise on shame, in two books, De libr. propriis 12 (Scr. min. ii, p. 121. 21 M. = vol. xix, p. 46. 4 K.).

^{page 91 note 1} Quod an. virt. ii (Scr. min. ii, p. 75. 13 = p. 817. 4 K.).

^{page 91 note 2} Op. cit., p. 75.13 M. = p. 817.4 K.

^{page 91 note 3} Op. cit., p. 75. 12 M. = p. 817. 3 K.

^{page 91 note 4} Cf. above, p. 83, nn. 5 and 6.

^{page 91 note 5} It is probable that this philosopher was Theophrastus, who understood δαμων as πσισ in Heraclitus' famous saying ＇Hθος νθρώπω δαμων (fr. 119 Diels), cf. Alexander Aphrod. De fato 6 (p. 170. 16 Bruns) and De anima libri mantissa, p. 186. 28 B. Theophrastus made this statement in his Καλλισθνης ἢ περ πνθους. Cf. O. Regenbogen, op. cit., col. 1484; Eraclito, ed. R. Walzer (Firenze, 1939), p. 149. Cf. also the in verses of Eupolis, below, p. 93, n. 2.

^{page 91 note 6} p. 38. 10 Kraus.

^{page 92 note 1} Cf., for example, Cicero, , De off. i. 46Google Scholar: ‘quoniam autem vivitur non cum perfectis hominibus planeque sapientibus.…’

^{page 92 note 2} Cf. Labowsky, L., Die Ethik des Panaitios Leipzig, 1934), pp. 37 ffGoogle Scholar., 115 ff.

^{page 92 note 3} Cf. p. go, n. 4.

^{page 92 note 4} Cf. Cicero, , De off. iii. 8Google Scholar; L. Edelstein, op. cit., nn. 97–100.

^{page 92 note 5} Galen, , Quod an. virt. 7–8Google Scholar. For Posidonius cf. De plac. v, pp. 442.11–443. 1 M. = p. 464,4–8; L. Edelstein, op. cit., nn. 83, 86. Cf. above, p. 85, n. 5.

^{page 92 note 6} Scr. min. ii, p. 75. 6 M. = iv, p. 816.14 K.

^{page 92 note 7} p. 30.1 Kraus.

^{page 92 note 8} A more specific statement may be compared with these sentences, to be found in the section on the ἢθη of the spirited soul (p. 33. 5 Kraus): ‘Courage consists in the avoidance of what is (base and ugly (αἰσχρόν) rather than in the avoidance of what is disadvantageous and evil (κακόν). An example of this attitude is the man who prefers death to defeat in war and who en-dures torture rather than bear false witness against his friend. This was observed in the case of the slaves of Perennis (cf. p. 83, n. 10) and their attitude to their late master; although they had not been educated, they acted like freeborn men; since they were free by nature. This indicates that the love of the noble (Φιλοκαλία) exists in some people by nature… and refutes what some people assert, namely, that nobility arises solely from corrective education.’ It had become more or less common in the Hellenistic age to consider a slave as a human being and not merely as a living tool. But to use this view as an argument for this doctrine of ἦθος appears to be unique and without a parallel in our tradition. Should we attribute this interesting innovation to Posidonius?

^{page 93 note 1} 7. 8 (p. 25. 22 de Boer = v, p. 37.12 K.).

^{page 93 note 2} Cf. Scr. min. ii, p. 74. 11 M. = iv, p. 815. 17 K. Cf. also the quotation from the 5th-century comic poet Eupolis in the same context of Galen 7. 10 (p. 26. 6 de Boer = v, p. 38. 7 K.); it was introduced into philosophical discussion by some previous philosopher (Theo-phrastus?). Cf. Meineke, , Frgm. Com. Grace, ii. i, p. 457Google Scholar; fr. 91, i. 280 Kock. Cf. above, p. 89, n. 6.

^{page 93 note 3} 7.14 (p. 27. 6 de Boer = v, p. 39. 13 K.).

^{page 93 note 4} 7. 15–17 (p. 27. 7–14 de Boer = v, p. 39. 14-40. 5 K.).

^{page 93 note 5} Cf. Plato, , Rep. 6. 491 dGoogle Scholar; Cicero, , De fin. v. 39–40Google Scholar: ‘earum etiam rerum quas terra gignit educatio quaedam et perfectio est non dissimilis animantium’. Cf. above, p. 89, n. 6.

^{page 93 note 6} Cf. Plutarch, , De tranq. an. 13 (472 e)Google Scholar; St. Luke vi. 44.

^{page 93 note 7} Cf. Scr. min. ii, p. 74. 1–15 M. = iv, p. 815. 7 ff. K.

^{page 93 note 8} Cf. Cicero, , De off. i. 110Google Scholar, 112.

^{page 94 note 1} Cf. above, p. 83, n. 2; p. 85, n. 5.

^{page 94 note 2} pp. 26. 8–27.18 Cairo edition. Kraus did not see that this section, in Miskawaih's work, is also to be referred to the De moribus.

^{page 94 note 3} This corresponds roughly to the statements in the Quod an. virt. 2(Scr. min. ii, p. 73. 6–12 = iv, p. 814.10–16 K.); pp. 74.21–75. iM. = iv. 816. 7–10 K. For those philosophers who believe in the original wickedness of mankind cf. p. 76. 7–16 M. = iv. 818. 1–10 K. Miskawaih reports a special theory underlying the views of these philosophers.

^{page 94 note 4} Galen expressly states in his later treatise that he does not give all the arguments used against the Stoic theory (Scr. min. ii, p. 75.1M. = iv, p. 816. 10 K.). The argument referred to by Miskawaih is not to be found elsewhere (but cf. Scr. min. ii. 77. 5 ff. M. = iv, p. 819. 2 ff. K.).

^{page 94 note 5} No argument against this school is preserved in the Quod an. virt.

^{page 94 note 6} This is a remarkable statement which I should also like to ascribe to Posidonius (cf. below). Plato's view, as expressed in the Phaedo (90 a), is much less pessimistic.

^{page 94 note 7} Cf. notes 2–5.

^{page 94 note 1} Scr. M.ii,p. 75. 2–5 M. = iv, p. 816. 10–13 K., cf. p. 77.15 M. = 819. 2 f. K.

^{page 94 note 2} Op. cit., p. 77.17 M. = iv, p. 819.13 K.

^{page 94 note 3} Op. cit., p. 78. 8–15. For the words pt'fa, ρίζα σπέρμα cf. above, p. 90, n. 4.

^{page 94 note 4} Op. cit., p. 78. 2: Kara rifv καϒα τήν περ τΨ τ πραϒματείϒον. Diog. Laert. 7. 91: ξν τῷ πρώτψ ττ Op. cit., p. 78. 4: ν τοῖς περ τς διαΦορςτν ρετν.

^{page 94 note 5} De plae. iv (pp. 437.3–438.12 M. = v, p. 459. 3–460. 10 K.).

^{page 94 note 6} De plac. iv (p. 445. 8–12 M. = V, p. 466. 12 K.). For his interest in Plato's Laws cf: also Edelstein, op. cit., n. 109.

^{page 94 note 7} Solon fr. 2 Diehl, Aetius 5. 23, Galen, De aff. dign. 8. 3 (p. 28Google Scholar. 9 de Boer = v, p. 41. 10 K.). Galen received his first philosophical instruction at this age.

^{page 94 note 8} De plac. iv (pp. 445.13–446. 7 M. = V, p. 466. 17–467. 8 K.).

^{page 94 note 9} 2, p. 410 a:…πολλ πεπλανημένος … οὐκατ' μπορίαν, λλ νρ Φιοθεάμων και Φιλομαθς οὐσίαν δ έχων ίκανν και τ πλείονα τν ίκανν ἒχεν οὐκ ἂξιον πολλο ποιούμενος έχρτο ϒῇ σχολῇ πρς τα τοιατα και συνϒεν ἱστορίαν οίον ὖλην ΦιλοσοΦίας θεολοϒίαν σπερ αὐτς τέλος έχούσης

^{page 95 note 1} Strabo 2. 3. 8 Cf. above, p. 86, n. 5.

Article contents

New Light on Galen's Moral Philosophy

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests