chapter 12 Galen and Middle Platonism: The Case of the Demiurge1

Julius Rocca

Introduction

Neither a professed Platonist nor an adherent to any school or sect,2 the ­physician-philosopher Galen of Pergamum (129–c.216 AD) nevertheless held Plato and his works in the highest esteem. Galen’s autobiographical On my own books (Lib. Propr.) lists “works dealing with the philosophy of ­Plato”. These include: The Platonist sect;3 a four-volume Commentary on the Medi- cal Statements in the Timaeus; a three-volume work directed To those whose opinion on the Forms differs from Plato’s; an eight-volume summary of Plato’s dialogues; On analogy in the Philebus; a three-volume work, The parts and faculties of the soul; That the faculties of the soul follow the mixture of the body; the ten-volume On the doctrines of Hippocrates and Plato.4 Of this substantial­ body of engagement with Plato and Platonism, only the two last survive. Galen’s Commentary on the medical statements in the Timaeus exists only in Greek fragments of book 3 and preserved excerpts in Arabic of books one and four.5 Galen’s Synopsis of the Timaeus (one of eight dialogue synopses)

1 An earlier version of this paper was read in Berlin in October, 2015, at a conference on ­Galen’s Natural Philosophy. I am grateful to Professor Philip van der Eijk for funding from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation which allowed me to attend. 2 Lib. Prop. XIX.13K; 95, Müller; devotees of such schools are termed “slaves” (δούλους). Galen is cited primarily according to the volume and page number of Kühn’s edition, and the relevant Teubner and CMG editions. Abbreviations are those of Hankinson (2008). 3 Περὶ τῆς Πλάτωνος αἱρέσεως, XIX.46K; 122, Müller. The title reminds us that what we are now usually dealing with interactions between philosophical schools of thought (αἱρέσεις). As Glucker (1978), 190–91 argues, the schools of Athens have now given way to “persuasions”, of one of which the adherents were Platonici (discussed at 207–25). This creates room for a great deal of interpretive scope both within and outside the sect. 4 Nine are extant in the CMG edition by De Lacy. For proof that the work originally comprised ten books, see Boudon-Millot (2007), 230 n.3. 5 Schröder and Kahle (1934). Larrain (1992) published what he claimed as new excerpts. See the sceptical reply by Nickel (2002), and the response by Das (2014).

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2018 | doi 10.1163/9789004355385_014 Galen and Middle Platonism: The Case of the Demiurge 207 survives in the Arabic translation of Hunayn Ibn Ishaq’s circle.6 Galen also expresses a philologist’s interest in Platonic texts, mentioning the “Plato of Panaetius” in Avoiding distress (Περὶ ἀλυπίας).7 He was taught by several Pla- tonists, but names only Albinus (a pupil of Gaius),8 and was not necessarily inclined to his views.9 For Galen, Plato is “most divine” (τοῦ θειοτάτου).10 But Galen is also critical of Plato, while fully appropriating him as the exemplar of how best to proceed philosophically,11 and he does not share a number of Platonism’s fundamental tenets. Keen to utilize Platonic soul tripartition in his epistemology and psychology (with varying degrees of success),12 Galen nevertheless expresses doubt (verging on indifference) regarding the nature and immortality of the soul, and has no fixed view on the creation of the cos- mos or the exact nature of god. These are theoretical concerns, of no use to ethical and political philosophy.13 Several studies have examined various facets of Galen’s Platonism,14 but what has received little serious attention is how and why Galen engages in

6 Kraus and Walzer (1951). 7 12b. Cf. Nutton (2013), 81. Galen also mentions so-callled Atticiana texts in a fragment of his commentary on the Timaeus, 11.107–9 Schröder. Cf. Hatzimichali (2013), 9–10. 8 Lib. Propr., XIX. 16 K; 97 Müller. The reference in Aff. Dig. to a “Platonist pupil of Gaius”, may be a reference to Albinus (V. 41 K; 28 De Boer). Albinus is known to have written commentaries on Tim., Phd., and Rep., as well as an introduction the dialogues. Cf. Dillon (1977/1996), 266–307; Tarrant (2007), 450–56. Galen also mentions a “Platonist friend” (φίλῳ Πλατωνικῷ) to whom he gave two introductory works on anatomy during his first stay in Rome. Lib. Propr., XIX. 12 K; 94 Müller. 9 “As a pupil of Albinus, Galen would have been closer to orthodoxy, but no more is guaran- teed.” Tarrant (2000), 188. 10 PHP IX.9, 598.9 De Lacy; V.792 K. Cf. UP 16, II.377 Helmreich; IV.266 K; MM 11, X.772 K. Even though Aristotelian investigative methodology is the bedrock of De usu partium, Aristotle is not in the same encomiastic league. Cf. Van der Eijk (2009). 11 Cf. De Lacy (1972), 31 ff. As Boys-Stones (2001), 149 has noted: “Galen did not take ­Plato’s (or Hippocrates’) authority as his starting-point, in the way that the Platonists did: both writers had to earn his respect, and he was capable of correcting them where they seemed wrong to him” (italics in original). Correction and exegesis are the twin aims in Galen’s Commentary on the Timaeus. Cf. Ferrari (1998), 20–32. On Galen’s further manipulations of the Timaeus, see Rashed (2009), 90. 12 The weakest point is Galen’s demonstration concerning the third part (τὸ ἐπιθυμητικόν) of the soul. Cf. De Lacy (1988). 13 Propr. Plac. 3, 60.3–7 Nutton; 2, 56.12–58.21 Nutton. Cf. PHP V.766–7 K; 576.27–578.2 De Lacy; V.779–781 K; 586.30–588.27 De Lacy. 14 See De Lacy (1972); Donini (1980); (1992); Singer (1993); Chiaradonna (2009) pro- vides a good overview of Galen and Middle Platonism. An excellent survey is that of