Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5300_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
governing parts differ from all the other parts in the body not only owing
to their capacity to govern but also owing to the profound relationship
they share with each other: the three form, in an important sense, a unity.
They co-depend on each other, and life-preservation requires the three of
them to function as one living entity.
The profound interconnectedness of the three systems sheds light on
the seeming inconsistency in Galen’s claims when, in some works, he
mentions three, while in others, he writes of four governing systems. This
point deserves to be addressed in greater detail.
. The Reproductive System as the Fourth Principle
The system sometimes called the fourth ἀρχή is reproductive, with testicles
(both masculine and feminine) as its governing part.
Galen’s description
of the reproductive system follows the pattern of other systems: it has a
ruling organ, it has offshoots,
its activities are not affections, in the sense
that the seed is not produced by another system, rendering it an independ-
ent system. Furthermore, the seed even contains pneuma.
The existence
of the seminal pneuma might seem like an indication of a distinct activity.
The tripartition of pneumata, as argued in Chapter , maps onto the
tripartition of the governing parts. In support of this view, it could be
pointed out that the seminal pneuma plays a distinct formative role in the
development of the embryo. According to Galen, an embryo is produced
from the mixture of seeds coming from both the mother and father, as well
as blood. Warm arterial blood is, in combination with the substance of the
seed, the matter from which warm inner organs are formed.
In Chapter , the passage describing the generation of the spinal
medulla was cited in the discussion of the generative capacities of the
tissues.
The passage is primarily preoccupied with explaining the gener-
ation of two types of tissues: bone and brain tissues that form crucial parts
of the spine. It also accounts for the way in which the spinal bone is
See, for example, Sem. .. de Lacy (.K). Ars. Med. . (, Boudon¼.K); MMG
. (.K).
Spermatic ducts (τα σπερματικά αγγεία), mentioned in Ars. Med. . (, Boudon ¼.K).
In UP . (., – Helmreich¼.K), Galen presents an argument for this point.
He claims that it is evident from the fact that the seed is foam-like and shrinks in the open air,
presumably due to the fact that the pneuma contained in it is dispersed. The understanding of the
seed as foam-like comes from Hippocratic texts, see Hankinson (b: ). The seed is not the
only source of pneuma in the embryo. Pneuma is also supplied by the arteries descending from the
womb, see Sem. .. de Lacy (.K).
Sem. ..– de Lacy (.K).
Sem. ..– de Lacy (.K); see Section ..
Tripartition
formed around the spinal medulla.
Most striking here is the description
of the seminal pneuma as self-moving; however, such a description does
not necessarily differentiate it from other types. Its motion downwards for
self-preservation is parallel to the motion of the innate heat downwards for
nourishment. The motion directed this way, it is worth remembering,
kindles and preserves the heat, whereas the motion upwards scatters and
quenches it. The vital pneuma, regulating the heat in the body as a whole
by ‘carrying’ heat and cold to the solids and fluids in the body (which
themselves move very little, see Section ..), also moves in the same
pattern. And, in fact, in another passage of On Seed, Galen explicitly
identifies the seminal pneuma as the vital pneuma.
The significance of the seminal pneuma in conception lies in its location
rather than in its special properties. In his attack on the Aristotelian claim
that the matter of seed is not used for the formation of the material parts of
an embryo,
Galen explicitly calls the seminal pneuma an instrument rather
than the agent of generation, when he rhetorically asks Aristotle ‘τί δώσεις
ὄργανον τῇ φύσει τούτου βέλτιον’ in reference to the shaping of cavities and
moulding of matter. The claim that it is an instrument by means of which
some parts of the matter are inflated, widened and aerated is repeated
throughout the treatise, often referring to the elemental properties of air
and fire,
comparing the hot and pliable matter of pneuma to cheese or
clay.
In a way, the seminal pneuma is the vital pneuma that gains a
formative role because it finds itself in the right place at the right time.
Just as the seminal pneuma is not distinctive enough to form a separate
type of pneumata, so the reproductive system does not play a significant
Sem. .. de Lacy (.K).
Sem. ..– de Lacy (.–K), tr. de Lacy (: ): οὐδὲ γὰροὐδ’ ὅτι πλῆρές ἐστι τοῦ
πνεύματος τοῦ ζωτικοῦ, τοῦτο λέληθέ σε.
Sem. .. de Lacy (.K).
Sem. ..– de Lacy (.–K), tr. de Lacy (: ): χρῆται μὲν ὀργάνοις ἡ φύσις εἰςτὴν
τῶν μορίων δημιουργίαν καὶ μάλιστα τῶν ἐχόντων κοιλίας ἀέρι τε καὶ πυρί. καὶ γὰρεὐρῦναι καὶ
διαφυσῆσαι καὶ παρατεῖναι καὶ ξηρᾶναι καὶ κρατῦναι τὰ σώματα τούτων ἔργον ἐστίν· ‘Nature
uses as instruments for the fashioning of the parts, especially the parts that have hollows, air and
fire. It is their function to broaden, aerate, stretch, dry, and strengthen the bodies.’ Later in this
passage, Galen also explains how body parts may be undeveloped, using the example of the eyes of
a mole. The example is presumably inspired by Aristotle HA ., discussed in Chapter .
According to Galen, underdeveloped mole’s eyes are due to the nature of the animal running
out of strength to send pneuma forcefully enough to send the eyes outwards.
Sem. ..– de Lacy (.–K).
The very same properties of pneuma produce pathological effects equally well. For example, the
cause of palpitations is thick and vaporous pneuma collecting in a cavity that is too small and has
no outlet. Galen calls this a complete explanation and adds that no other element constituting the
body (of which there are three, following Hippocrates, solids, fluids and pneumata) would be able
to move very quickly and easily throughout the whole body. Trem. Palp. (.–K).
. The Reproductive System as the Fourth Principle
enough role to make it one of the vital systems. The loss of reproductive
capacity does not constitute a threat to vitality, even if it does cause
considerable damage to the body.
The body can very well keep on
functioning without it. Presumably, this is why in his classification of all
the parts in On the Usefulness of Parts, he puts reproduction in a category
separate from the parts necessary for life itself or good life. The under-
standing of reproduction qua independent system is important for thera-
peutic purposes (so that pertinent illnesses can be treated via the
reproductive organs), but it is not a system that a doctor has to take into
account when treating patients with life-threatening conditions, such as
certain fevers.
. Concluding Remarks: A Living Body as a Unified Whole
In as far as Galen himself does not describe vitality as constituted of a
cohesive cause and does not identify tripartition as the ‘capacity’ element
in his definition of these causes in his extant works, this reading is
somewhat speculative. However, it is nonetheless true that he uses the
notion of a cohesive cause to theorise and reflect on vital processes. If we
have to find a theoretical device in his works by means of which a Galenic
thinker could conceptualise the vital unity and explain what makes a
living, breathing, moving organism one, the cohesive cause would have
to be, at the very least, a serious contender. If such phenomena as pulse
and respiration can be accounted for with a reference to a cohesive cause,
then it is reasonable to argue that this notion could apply on a larger scale,
to the vitality of a living being as a whole.
The discussion of the cohesive cause also helps to show the way in
which the tripartite physiological domains are ‘one’. The three souls
together constitute the single capacity vitality: the ability to eat, breathe
and perceive/move voluntarily constitutes, in a distinctly Galenic sense,
the form of animate life. This point builds on the reading presented at the
end of Chapter namely, that the presence of one system affects another:
the vegetative system as it is present in animals could not be separated and
exist in isolation qua plant. The presence of these physiological domains
affects each other in profound ways, forming a single inseparable unity:
Galen argues against the excision of testicles and the subsequent damage to the body as a whole in
Sem. ..– de Lacy (.–).
As in MM . (.–K); and, in fact, even in Sem. .. de Lacy (.K), he talks of the
heart as the source of living and the testicles as the source of living well.
Tripartition
vitality. Building on this point, this chapter has shown that the significance
of this tripartite capacity is closely tied to the way in which Galen accounts
for the significance of the instruments, such as a bone or the psychic
pneuma.
In both cases, the functional aspect of parts plays the key
explanatory role. The only difference is in what is at stake. The loss of an
instrument can be restored, but the loss of even one of the vital processes
that constitute vitality inevitably leads to the end of life, since they are
functionally one, forming a single unified manifestation of vitality.
Arguably, a fairly direct statement to this effect can be found in UP . (., –
Helmreich¼.–K). Walking is impeded when the main agents of motion, the nerves and
muscles, are destroyed, but it is also destroyed when the supportive parts, the bones, are broken.
See also the discussion in Chapter .
. Concluding Remarks: A Living Body as a Unified Whole
Conclusions
Οἰκοδόμοι ἐκ διαφόρων σύμφορον ἐργάζονται, τὰ μὲν ξηρὰ
ὑγραίνοντες, τ ὰ δὲὑγρὰ ξηραίνοντες, τὰ μὲν ὅλα διαιρέοντες, τὰ
δὲ διῃρημένα συντιθέντες· μὴ οὕτω δὲἐχόντων οὐκ ἂν ἔχοι ᾗ δεῖ.
δίαιταν ἀνθρωπίνην μιμέεται· τὰ μὲν ξηρὰὑγραίνοντες, τὰ δὲὑγρὰ
ξηραίνοντες, τὰ μὲν ὅλα διαιρέουσι, τὰ δὲ διῃρημένα συντιθέασι.
Hippocratic Corpus, On Regimen
This study approached the problem of the unity of Galenic physiology
with the question of how Galen divides the body into parts and how those
divisions help him to construct his account of the functioning of various
vital systems. In other words, the ways in which he takes the body apart
and then puts it back together again.
The first chapter was dedicated not only to outlining some of the more
prevalent and informative divisions of parts in the Galenic corpus but also to
showing that Galen’s key preoccupation in discussing part-whole relation-
shipswithinthebodyisactivity,includingsuchaspectsasthetypeof
governance a part is capable of (whether a part self-manages, governs or is
governed by other parts). The subsequent chapters explore the ways in which
the parts come together to fulfil the key vital activities, on the basis of their
respective physiological domains: vegetative and nutrition, spirited and
breathing, nervous and voluntary motion as well as perception. Moving fro m
simpler and more fundamental towards more complex animal physiology,
I argue that the preoccupation with unity is built into Galen’sreflection on
vitality. The vegetative life entails a complex type of self-sufficiency that
unifies living organisms and differentiates them from non-living entities.
The discussion of the spirited domain in Chapter showed that the presence
of this domain not only renders a living being an animal rather than a plant
but also changes the vegetative capacities of that living being. However, it is
the presence of the nervous system that has an especially dramatic effect: the
Vict. . (Littré .).
sensory and the motor capacities obviously enable the interaction with the
external environment, but , eq ually importantly, the sensory capacity can be
directed internally, registering pain or hunger. It enables an animal to
‘perceive’ itself, physiologically: it is a mechanism by means of which one
tissue can register changes in another tissue, without being affected by the
same process. In other words: the nervous system allows an animal to ‘sense’
itself as a single body constituted of different parts and move itself with
intention and design, acting in its own interest and preservation. The final
chapter deals with a problem of tripartition as it applies to physiology,
arguing that three physiological domains are unified by focus on activity
too, allowing to construct vitality as a cohesive cause, with tripartition acting
as a single, central ‘capacity’ for vitality.
Living is constituted by vital activities. For the body to be unified and not
fall apart, all of them need to be carried out. The unity of the body,
therefore, ought to be understood in terms of process, not the presence of
aspecific part or even the structural connection between those parts, but the
activities that such structures enable. The body parts themselves are under-
stood primarily through the lenses of functional rather than normative
parthood. And if Galen takes the body apart by using various notions of a
body part, he puts it back together using the theorisations of an activity.
In analysing and conceptualising the vital activity, he draws from the rich
philosophical tradition, although his contemporary Middle Platonism is an
especially important influence because some of its central preoccupations
inform Galen’s understanding of his philosophical heritage too. At the same
time, he uses philosophical tools in odd contexts, with unique results. Most
importantly, they help to theorise physiological processes. Galen treats
process as goal-oriented, which ultimately leads to the idea that purpose,
supported by the capacity and instruments, is the unifying force of the body.
His understanding of the originally Aristotelian idea that the final cause is
of primary importance when it comes to explanations is filtered through the
preoccupations of his contemporary Platonists, and comes with a strong
commitment to providential design. It finds its way into Galen’sanalyses
of bodily processes not only by means of emphasis on the teleological
explanations of the functioning of various body parts but also by means of
his own treatment of such notions as thecohesivecause.Whendiscussingthe
processes of the body, he also uses the scheme of the cohesive cause,
consisting of a purpose, a capacity and instruments, noting that the first is
the most important one. Thus, Galen consistently picks out those theoretical
tools that help him to account for the bodily functions as processes g uided by
a purpose of maintaining life in the most efficient and providential way.
Conclusions
The problem of the originality of Galen’s thought is complex. In many
respects, Galenic ‘philosophy’ is very much a product of his time: he shares
similar commitments and assumptions with many of his contemporary
Middle Platonists. At the same time, he certainly innovates, even though
his contribution comes from his preoccupation with medicine. In other
words, his acute awareness of the problems that pertain to the living body
and its parts makes him push conceptual boundaries beyond what is
typical in philosophical discourses. In this way, Galen’s innovations are
not entirely intended. He does not set out to be a philosopher, let alone an
innovative philosopher; he sets out to be an extremely well-informed and
learned doctor. He uses philosophical concepts and theories primarily to
study the human body, to treat its illnesses and to maintain its health. But
neither the philosophical concepts nor theories he uses were ever genuinely
intended for such a study. Ancient philosophers are certainly preoccupied
with the study of the body in general and they may have even drawn from
the knowledge of medical practitioners, but this kind of study was not
really aimed at application. Philosophers do not have patients, at least not
the patients of the body. However elaborate Empedocles’ account of
respiration might have been, there is hardly any reason to suppose that
anyone went to him with a cough.
Galen, meanwhile, did treat people
with coughs and much else. The body in his works is not an abstract
entity. It comprises many different parts, and most of which – ideally all –
need to be kept in working order.
Although doxographical sources show that Empedocles had substantial interest in medical topics, he
is by no means an ordinary practitioner. Aëtius reports his views on a number of medical issues,
including breathing (.. Mansfeld and Runia), sleep (..), nourishment (..), mixtures
that constitute body parts ( ..) and especially embryology (..; ..; . .; ..; ..;
..; ..). He is certainly one of the most important proponents of phusiologia (see section in
the Introduction). However, another doxographer, Diogenes Laertius, preserves descriptions of
Empedocles’ medical endeavours as extraordinary, nearly divine, acts of healing, hardly ordinary
medical practice. Diogenes provides two accounts, one by Heraclides and another one by
Hermippus, of Empedocles’ resurrecting a woman considered dead. In both accounts, this act is
connected to a sacrifice the Presocratic philosopher performed. The resurrection of the dead has close
associations with divinity, especially with the god Asclepius (see Plato R. .B–C which references
Pindar’s Pythian Ode . (esp. line )). Heraclides’ report, in particular, makes a connection with
the deification of Empedocles (Diogenes Laertius .–). Similarly, Diogenes reports Diodorus of
Ephesus’ account of Empedocles ending a plague by figuring out that it was caused by the nearby
river. He then diverts the stream to merge it with another one at his own expense, thus ending the
plague. The event leads to the worship of Empedocles as if he were a deity (Diogenes Laertius .).
At least in these doxographical anecdotes, Empedocles is not portrayed as an ordinary doctor: his
medical springs from a higher kind of knowledge that is comparable to the divine, and this
knowledge is Empedocles’ key preoccupation: if he finds himself in a situation when this
knowledge can be applied for the sake of healing, that is a piece of good luck for people affected,
but Empedocles is not portrayed as someone who undertakes to heal in general.
Conclusions
This study showed that preoccupation with activity is evident in many
aspects of Galenic thought: in the way he reflects on and defines parthood,
the interaction between the physiological domains and especially the relation
between the three governing parts. When it comes to the latter, his interest
in not just psychological conflict but also physiological consilience reveals an
intricate picture of the levels of different types of vitality that build upon
each other and come together to form a unified whole by means of their co-
dependent activities: eating, breathing, moving and perceiving.
It was presumably the urgency of his experience as a doctor that led
Galen to produce nuanced reflections on the nature of the living wholes
and their parts. Indeed, his contribution in this area of philosophy is often
overlooked. It does, however, deserve much more scholarly attention,
partly because of its legacy. After all, Galenic medicine did not end with
Galen’s own life. It flourished centuries after his death and dominates
medical discourses in both Europe and Western Asia.
Understanding the
ways in which he theorised the unity of the body helps to understand this
long, rich and multifaceted tradition that dominated the region almost
until the modern period.
Having said that, Galen’s works arguably ought to be read primarily for
their own sake. There is an enduring sense of wonder preserved in his
texts. He uses pronounced aesthetic vocabulary not only to describe the
nerves but also the complexity of the human body in general.
What lies
below the noses of the stargazers is no less complex or intricately made and
no less worthy of awe and wonder. And perhaps this sense of wonder is a
significant background to Galen’s account of the functioning of the
human body: even some questions that philosophers concern themselves
with must remain unanswered, the body is marvellously moving and
supporting life, and it is clear that there is not only immense coherence
and unity in those movements but also beauty.
See the papers collected in Bouras-Vallianatos and Zipser (); for the reception of Galen in the
Renaissance, see Nutton (; , chapter ); Salas (: chapter ); Temkin (); for
Galen’s reception in antiquity, see Nutton () and Slaveva-Griffin (manuscript in preparation).
For the development of the disciplines of physiology and anatomy after Galen, see Cunningham
(, , ).
UP . (. Helmreich¼.K); . (. Helmreich¼.K); see also the comparison
between the animal’s body and the universe, stating that the best thing is the universe, but an
animal’s body is a reflection of it in miniature (UP . (., – Helmreich¼.K)). See also
Hankinson (b: –) for more examples of beauty of human anatomy. Galen’s use of aesthetic
vocabulary has some Stoic resonances, see Čelkytė (b: –).
Conclusions
References
Adamson, P. . ‘Galen on Void’.InPhilosophical Themes in Galen, ed
P. Adamson, R. Hansberger and J. Wilberding. London: Institute of
Classical Studies: –.
Adamson, P., R. Hansberger and J. Wilberding (eds.). . Philosophical Themes
in Galen. London: Institute of Classical Studies.
Allen, J. . Inference from Signs: Ancient Debates about the Nature of Evidence.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
von Arnim, J. (ed.). –. Stoicorum veterum fragmenta. vols. Leipzig:
Teubner.
Barnes, J. . The Presocratic Philosophers. London: Routledge.
(ed.). . The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
. ‘Bits and Pieces’.InMatter and Metaphysics, ed. J. Barnes and
M. Mignucci. Rome: Bibliopolis: –.
Berman, B. . ‘Aristotle on Like-Partedness and the Like-Parted Bodies’. Early
Science and Medicine : –.
Berryman, S. . ‘Horror Vacui in the Third Century BC: When Is a Theory
Not a Theory?’ Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Supplement no. :
–.
. ‘Aristotle on Pneuma and Animal Self-Motion’. Oxford Studies in Ancient
Philosophy : –
.
. The Mechanical Hypothesis in Ancient Greek Natural Philosophy.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Betegh, G. . ‘Fire Heat and Motive Force in Early Greek Philosophy and
Medicine’.InHeat, Pneuma and Soul in Ancient Philosophy and Science, ed.
H. Bartos and C. G. King. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: –.
Bett, R. . Sextus Empiricus: ‘Again st the Physicists’. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Blank, D. . ‘Ammonius Hermeiou and His School’.InThe Cambridge
History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, ed. L. Gerson. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press: –.
Bobzien, S. . ‘“Chrysippus” Theory of Causes’.InTopics in Stoic Philosophy,
ed. K. Ierodiakonou. Oxford: Oxford University Press: –.
de Boer, W. . De propriorum animi cuiuslibet affectuum dignotione et cur-
atione, De animi cuiuslibet peccatorum dignotione et curatione and De atra bile,
CMG V , , . Berlin: Akad emieVerlag.
Bonazzi, M. . ‘The Perfidious Strategy; or, the Platonists against Stoicism’
In Strategies of Polemics in Greek and Roman Philosophy, ed. S. Weisser and
N. Thaler. Leiden: Brill: –.
Boudon-Millot, V. (ed.). . Galien. Tome ii: Exhortation à l’étude de la
médecine; Art médical. Paris: Belles Lettres.
. Galien, Tome , Introduction générale. Sur l’ Ordre des ses propres Livres.
Sur ses propres Livres. Que l’ excellent Médecin est aussi Philosophe. Paris: Les
Belles Lettres.
. ‘Vision and Vision Disorders: Galen’s Physiology of Sight’.InBlood,
Sweat and Tears: The Changing Concepts of Physiology from Antiquity into
Early Modern Europe, ed. H. Horstmanshoff, H. King and C. Zittel. Leiden:
Brill: –.
Boudon-Millot, V., and A. Pietrobelli (eds.). . ‘Galien ressuscité: édition
princeps du texte Grec du De Propriis Placitis’. Revue des Etudes Grecques
: –.
Bouras-Vallianatos, P., and B. Zipser. (eds.). . Brill’s Companion to the
Reception of Galen. Leiden: Brill.
Bowersock, G. W. (ed.). . Approaches to the Second Sophistic: Papers Presented
at the th Annual Meeting of the American Philological Association.
University Park: American Philological Association, Pennsylvania State
University.
Boylan, M.
. ‘The Galenic and Hippocratic Challenges to Aristotle’s
Conception Theory’. Journal of the History of Biology (): –.
. ‘Galen’s Conception Theory’. Journal of the History of Biology ():
–.
Boys-Stones, G. . Platonist Philosophy BC to AD : An Introduction and
Collection of Sources in Translation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brain, P. . Galen on Bloodletting: A Study of the Origins, Development and
Validity of His Opinions, with a Translation of the Three Works. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Broadie, S. . ‘Nature, Craft and Phronesis in Aristotle’. Philosophical Topics
(): –.
. ‘Why No Platonistic Ideas of Artefacts?’ In Maieusis: Essays in Ancient
Philosophy in Honour of Myles Burnyeat, ed. D. Scott. Oxford: Oxford
University Press: –.
Brock, A. J. . Galen: On the Natural Faculties. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Brunschön, C. W. . Galeni De locis affectis V–VI, CMG V , ,
. Berlin: De
Gruyter.
Caston, V. . ‘Epiphenomenalism, Ancient and Modern’. The Philosophical
Review (): –.
References